How about, instead of spreading misinformation, point the readers to the actual video footage of BUK missile launches and let the viewer decide for themselves?
I'm pretty sure you know the answer to that question already.
Why would they bother with the missile if they had disabled the flight deck?
To make sure the plane is dead.
There are quite a few anomalies with this particular incident. I'm not saying Russia is innocent or that Kiev is guilty, this if for investigators. That out of the way we have flight data showing Ukrainian fighters operating in the area. We have Vladamir Putin's airplane in nearly the same exact airspace a short time before MH17 was shot down. We have a lack of sightings for a BUK plume or launch. We have a civilian jet that was directed to fly over a war zone (this does happen but is not common). Finally we have a lack of tower data and radar data from the Ukrainian government (could be innocent but surely appears suspicious).
Oh, and it's the same airline company that lost a whole plane under very suspicious circumstances a few month's prior.
The whole situation in the Ukraine is a mess. Both sides (East and West) are being dishonest about everything. Who do you trust when everyone is a liar?
While surely you can refuse the polygraph the prosecutor can use your "refusal" as an argument to a jury that you are guilty. Just like they can use your results _if_ you accept the request for a polygraph.
You are trying to make the answer simple, when in fact it is not. Polygraphs are not illegal, and the presumption of innocence has been a dead thought in courts for quite a long time now.
Nixon, Bush, and Reagan are all serving, or did,serve prison terms for their illegal speech right? Each of these guys are also in authoritative positions which can require people to follow their whims, unlike the person TFA discusses who is not in an authoritative position.
You are attempting to draw a distinction that does not exist. Read your Constitution, read the Federalist papers, etc... etc.. there is not even a hint at "some" speech being disallowed.
You perhaps dislike what the guy was saying and teaching, but if I taught you to parachute and told you to jump off of the Sears building is that my fault if you do so? Hell No! You could try to sue me in civil court (good luck with that one, but people do win on occasion), but I have not done anything illegal or criminal.
Let me give another example just to drive the point home. If you were to ask me "Hey, I got a chance for this government gig and I was arrested and never charged for something when I was 8 years old. Should I tell them?" I can advise you either way, but my advice does not supersede the Government requirements for you to tell the truth. I am in no authoritative position to do so, and neither was the guy arrested.
Please tell me, how does this guys paid-for advice make laws and regulations not exist? Go ahead, I await your great wisdom on that one. Be cautious with that answer, because I have some quotes from all kinds of biographies that should be in jail for much worse crimes than what they are stacking on this guy.
I misunderstood your point quite a bit. Apologies for that. Even still, there is no proof that not dropping atomic bombs on Japan would have resulted in atomic bombs being used elsewhere. We already knew from testing how devastating these bombs were, and Russia already knew as well. The race to a MAD setup on both sides would have happened either way.
Prove it! Not with hyperbole but actual proof. Did we drop any atomic bombs in any non-civilian areas to demonstrate that we could decimate large populations and Japan seeing this refused to surrender? NO! We dropped 2 atomic bombs on two cities full of civilians. We never attempted to drop the atomic bombs on more sensible targets, such as a military base on the coast. We went right after two large civilian targets, killing for "maximum psychological effect". Here is a source for you to read, but you can find plenty of sources to debunk your belief.
The majority of the arguments attempting to back bombing 2 cities relates to "invading japan" and claiming how impossible it would have been. More horse shit, because Japan was out of resources and could not produce any longer. They had no planes to defend themselves, and no fuel. Japan had to import petroleum, metals, sulfur, and potassium. The US had decimated their shipping. Further, they lost most of their conquered territory on mainland Asia where they were able to get these resources. In one Tokyo bombing raid 100,000 civilians were killed because Japan COULD NOT DEFEND ITSELF! Russia had just declared war and almost immediately captured one of their puppet states and Japan was already negotiating with Russia to end that part of the war.
There is no truth to the claim that the US was still under threat from Japan at that point, and there is no proof that Japan would not have surrendered prior to dropping the atomic bombs. There is evidence that they were already considering surrender when the bombs were dropped. Make sure to follow all the links in that one, where you will find both US and UK intelligence documents showing that Japan was trying to negotiate surrender 3 weeks prior to the bombs.
I agree that there will be down time, I'd personally bring a book or three but nothing more than this. This person is not going to be isolated away from everyone else, so will have locals to try and mimic. What would I bring to read? Probably something like "Newton and The Counterfeiter" for entertainment and The Republic for personal development. Both of these books are thick and you can't read either in a day or two. It would probably be good to have a medical book and journal as well.
You did not save any lives, you killed 20 people. You can attempt to claim "We saved 100 lives by killing 20" but that is horse shit. Complete and utter horse shit.
Example: WW II and the 2 Atomic Bombs. You really want to claim that Japan, who was already considering surrender, would not have surrendered if those bombs were dropped near a population instead of _on_ a population? How about dropping them on a military installation instead of a city full of women, elderly, and children? It was a senseless killing at least 1/4 million civilians outright, and not even military aged men who were in military installations or dead already.
Any claim that this "saved lives" is complete fabrication. It was the murder of 250,000 people that people try and justify with a false claim. We happened to win the war which means our side did not face a tribunal for war crimes. Numerous Germans were put to death for killing far fewer people.
Try reading past the first paragraph. No, I read nothing else you said after the false accusations and ad hominem. If you don't understand the 2nd paragraph blame your public school and request clarification.
My opinion of course, but Aristotle was the Philosophical equivalent to Machiavelli in terms of society. He was very much a Sophist and though a student of Plato he was not well liked. Socrates remember was anti-slavery, and full on equal rights (including women's rights) which at the time was unheard of. Plato held the same beliefs but saw society as always falling to corruption (why he "quit" being an Athenian and got out of politics). Aristotle believe that people like him should be pampered by the state and provided slaves and luxuries.
Bright in Math, but weak in Psychology, Sociology, and Political sciences in terms of "Public good".
Do you really and truly believe that everything happening is an accident? I'll simply ask you to reconsider, remembering that the US and UK funded and trained at least many of the rebels now being called ISIS. Zoom out and look at the picture with a wide angle lens. In the words of FDR, "In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way."
Next review the Hegelian Dialectic.
You can choose to ignore how all of these alleged accidents have specific results, or you can realize they are coordinated and planned. The former will be business as usual, the latter can result in change.
You could argue that what the IRS did made it more difficult for conservatives to get their message out,
How exactly is this not attacking freedom of speech? I would agree that there are multiple simultaneous attacks occurring, but you seem to be minimizing this particular vector for some reason.
If you are harassed for an activity, other people see that harassment and are less likely to perform the same action. Example: If you bomb 20 people with guns how likely are other people to go get a gun? You may not have caused direct bodily harm to all of those people, but you have still attacked a much larger populace than your 20 bombs killed.
Correction, in haste rushing out the door for work I gave the wrong quote. It should have been "security of a free State" but the definition of security is the same as in other amendments of the Constitution, such as the 5th amendment.
I fully understand what a billion is, you simply failed to do any research into how much money is spent on "no to labeling" campaigns. Look at how much money was spent in Colorado alone during the last election cycle where GMO labeling was on the ballot. Monsanto alone spent over 10milion dollars on this one small market. Now go through each state and see how much money is spent on these campaigns by all of the GMO producers, because states like New York and California saw similar or more spending. The sums being spent are enormous. Below is from the article linked last, and is 1 market 1 voting cycle (California). Now add up what Monsanto, Dupont, etc.. has spent Nationally in all markets.
Companies and their donations to keep GMO off of labels in California:
Ironically most of the companies lobbying against Prop 37 have a stake in the organic industry. See that list below, it might surprise you.
Monsanto = $7,100,000.
DuPont = $5,200,000.
PepsiCo Inc. = $2,500,000.
BASF Plant Science = $2,000,000.
Bayer CropScience = $2,000,000.
Dow Agrosciences = $2,000,000.
Syngenta Corp = $2,000,000.
Kraft Foods = $2,000,000.
Coca-Cola = $1,700,000.
Nestle USA = $1,315,400.
ConAgra Foods = $1,200,000.
General Mills = $1,200,000.
Del Monte = $674,000.
Kellogg Co. = $790,700.
Smithfield = $671,000.
Council for Biotechnology Information = $625,000.
Heinz = $500,000.
Hershey Company = $493,900.
J.M. Smucker Co. = $555,000.
Grocery Manufacturers Association = $375,000.
Hormel Foods Corp. = $374,300.
Unilever = $ 460,000.
Mars Food North America = $370,280.
Bimbo Bakeries USA = $422,900.
Ocean Spray Cranberries = $326,500.
Campbell Soup Co. = $320,455.
Pinnacle Foods Group LLC = $266,100.
Dean Foods Co. = $253,950.
Biotech Industry Organization = $250,000.
McCormick & Co. Inc. = $248,200.
Abbott Nutrition (Infant Formulas / Similac) = $230,900.
Rich Products Corp. = $225,500.
Cargill Inc. = $226,800.
Welch's = $167,000.
Knouse Foods Cooperative = $160,300.
W.M. Wrigley Jr. Co. = $116,900.
Sunny Delight Beverages Co. = $114,500.
Tree Top = $110,300.
Bumble Bee Foods = $98,000.
Sara Lee Corp. = $96,800.
Hillshire Brands (Ball Park, Jimmy Dean) = $86,000.
McCain Foods USA = $50,600.
Dole Packaged Foods Co. = $45,580.
Goya = $ 56,100.
Clorox = $33,000.
S & W = $21,100.
The second amendment does claim this... to be secure in their person.. which means "free". A person living under and oppressive government is not free, therefor not secure. The language used in the Constitution is beautifully written, and full of intentional generalizations.
Studying Plato's "The Republic" will give people insight into politicians, their shitty actions, their ability to bullshit people, and give them some tools to see through the rhetoric and be more impacting to their Government. I have been saying for decades that we need to get these classes back into schools and teach rhetoric and logic to a much younger age instead of restricting this to very few people at a college level.
Oh wait, this is PLATO which has nothing to do with political thought.. Yes, lets continue to neglect educating people about those dangerous bits of knowledge and continue pushing the industrial education system. Nothing new here.
Probably because you get taught that dangling metal on a necklace is just as dangerous as a metal ring. Same with a bracelet, watch, earring, etc...
Yup, I have seen people use leather so it's safer but it is a bad habit to get into. The safest rule is to remove all jewelry when working on electronics without exception.. but them in your pocket until you are done.
Generalization fallacy, sorry pal but you don't speak for everyone. Every single person I work with cares, and there was a good amount of turnover in the mid-terms. Considering we have a problem with having only 2 candidates each from the major party on the ballots it can surely get better, but _we_ must work to get these people on ballots.
You also fail to consider the amount of propaganda the media puts out to prevent voting, and prevents voting for non D or R candidates. Again, it's our job to fix that and _we_ must use word of mouth to force a change.
Notice that both of those statements included "_we_ must work" because nobody will do it for us, we don't control the media an establishment does. Not easy, I agree, but complacency is not going to change anything.
There is more collusion amongst the automakers than there is competition. It is up to us to pry open their books if we are going to attempt to 'keep them honest'. As publicly held companies, they are not entitled to any real privacy themselves. A few surprise inspections is the only way to determine if they do what they say.
To an extent sure, but I think FOIA rejections based on claims of national security are enough to let you know this won't do any damn good after the fact.
Actually it has concern has little to do with 'a certified union' and is more of a concern with the epidemic of single mothers forced to live on social welfare programs to support their kids, being given incentives to not have 2 parent families, and punished by the welfare systems if they attempt to establish or maintain a two parent household.
These are just a few examples of the concern and impact this is having on society, and especially effecting certain ethnic groups.
Unfortunately while all of the corruption exist in Government this won't be fixed. You can do your own searching to find out why that is, but I'll give you a hint. Milton Friedman was one of many that explained this situation and why people want it that way.
So the first step is to look at the logs and see if the rejection message has any information in it. Do the rejection messages at YAHOO and HOTMAIL have the same code?
They won't, each major ISP uses their own codes and return strings. They do follow RFC, 400 is a deferral and 500 are rejections, but both will return their own custom of 4xx and 5xx.
A huge problem with Yahoo, AOL, and Hotmail is that they won't provide much information on why you are being deferred or rejected. You can sign up for their feedback loops and start looking for where they get complaints. Working at an ISP one of the best is that customers forward mail from our servers to a Yahoo account and then mark it as Spam which gets our servers into the Yahoo shit list. Yes, they are too lazy to determine when mail is forwarded to a single recipient, and have refused to fix this issue for over a decade. They also allow a single user to submit the same 1 message as spam as often as they want. We have had single Yahoo mail accounts submit the same exact message tens of thousands causing our servers to be hard rejected. I personally hate them, and yes I have reason for my hate.
Gmail does return some pretty good text with their rejections and deferrals. Reading the messages will usually point out the problem, at least from the Google point of view.
If you are not already doing so, run SpamAssassin which can rate outbound mail and places headers in the mail so you can trace problems. One of your connecting clients may be in a RBL and not know it, which may cause rejections. I'd also recommend something like Cloudmark plugged in, or at least DCC. Quarantine mail detected as spam and see what's going on.
Slashdot Mirror
How about, instead of spreading misinformation, point the readers to the actual video footage of BUK missile launches and let the viewer decide for themselves?
I'm pretty sure you know the answer to that question already.
Why would they bother with the missile if they had disabled the flight deck?
To make sure the plane is dead.
There are quite a few anomalies with this particular incident. I'm not saying Russia is innocent or that Kiev is guilty, this if for investigators. That out of the way we have flight data showing Ukrainian fighters operating in the area. We have Vladamir Putin's airplane in nearly the same exact airspace a short time before MH17 was shot down. We have a lack of sightings for a BUK plume or launch. We have a civilian jet that was directed to fly over a war zone (this does happen but is not common). Finally we have a lack of tower data and radar data from the Ukrainian government (could be innocent but surely appears suspicious).
Oh, and it's the same airline company that lost a whole plane under very suspicious circumstances a few month's prior.
The whole situation in the Ukraine is a mess. Both sides (East and West) are being dishonest about everything. Who do you trust when everyone is a liar?
While surely you can refuse the polygraph the prosecutor can use your "refusal" as an argument to a jury that you are guilty. Just like they can use your results _if_ you accept the request for a polygraph.
You are trying to make the answer simple, when in fact it is not. Polygraphs are not illegal, and the presumption of innocence has been a dead thought in courts for quite a long time now.
Nixon, Bush, and Reagan are all serving, or did ,serve prison terms for their illegal speech right? Each of these guys are also in authoritative positions which can require people to follow their whims, unlike the person TFA discusses who is not in an authoritative position.
You are attempting to draw a distinction that does not exist. Read your Constitution, read the Federalist papers, etc... etc.. there is not even a hint at "some" speech being disallowed.
You perhaps dislike what the guy was saying and teaching, but if I taught you to parachute and told you to jump off of the Sears building is that my fault if you do so? Hell No! You could try to sue me in civil court (good luck with that one, but people do win on occasion), but I have not done anything illegal or criminal.
Let me give another example just to drive the point home. If you were to ask me "Hey, I got a chance for this government gig and I was arrested and never charged for something when I was 8 years old. Should I tell them?" I can advise you either way, but my advice does not supersede the Government requirements for you to tell the truth. I am in no authoritative position to do so, and neither was the guy arrested.
Please tell me, how does this guys paid-for advice make laws and regulations not exist? Go ahead, I await your great wisdom on that one. Be cautious with that answer, because I have some quotes from all kinds of biographies that should be in jail for much worse crimes than what they are stacking on this guy.
I misunderstood your point quite a bit. Apologies for that. Even still, there is no proof that not dropping atomic bombs on Japan would have resulted in atomic bombs being used elsewhere. We already knew from testing how devastating these bombs were, and Russia already knew as well. The race to a MAD setup on both sides would have happened either way.
Prove it! Not with hyperbole but actual proof. Did we drop any atomic bombs in any non-civilian areas to demonstrate that we could decimate large populations and Japan seeing this refused to surrender? NO! We dropped 2 atomic bombs on two cities full of civilians. We never attempted to drop the atomic bombs on more sensible targets, such as a military base on the coast. We went right after two large civilian targets, killing for "maximum psychological effect". Here is a source for you to read, but you can find plenty of sources to debunk your belief.
The majority of the arguments attempting to back bombing 2 cities relates to "invading japan" and claiming how impossible it would have been. More horse shit, because Japan was out of resources and could not produce any longer. They had no planes to defend themselves, and no fuel. Japan had to import petroleum, metals, sulfur, and potassium. The US had decimated their shipping. Further, they lost most of their conquered territory on mainland Asia where they were able to get these resources. In one Tokyo bombing raid 100,000 civilians were killed because Japan COULD NOT DEFEND ITSELF! Russia had just declared war and almost immediately captured one of their puppet states and Japan was already negotiating with Russia to end that part of the war.
There is no truth to the claim that the US was still under threat from Japan at that point, and there is no proof that Japan would not have surrendered prior to dropping the atomic bombs. There is evidence that they were already considering surrender when the bombs were dropped. Make sure to follow all the links in that one, where you will find both US and UK intelligence documents showing that Japan was trying to negotiate surrender 3 weeks prior to the bombs.
I agree that there will be down time, I'd personally bring a book or three but nothing more than this. This person is not going to be isolated away from everyone else, so will have locals to try and mimic. What would I bring to read? Probably something like "Newton and The Counterfeiter" for entertainment and The Republic for personal development. Both of these books are thick and you can't read either in a day or two. It would probably be good to have a medical book and journal as well.
You did not save any lives, you killed 20 people. You can attempt to claim "We saved 100 lives by killing 20" but that is horse shit. Complete and utter horse shit.
Example: WW II and the 2 Atomic Bombs. You really want to claim that Japan, who was already considering surrender, would not have surrendered if those bombs were dropped near a population instead of _on_ a population? How about dropping them on a military installation instead of a city full of women, elderly, and children? It was a senseless killing at least 1/4 million civilians outright, and not even military aged men who were in military installations or dead already.
Any claim that this "saved lives" is complete fabrication. It was the murder of 250,000 people that people try and justify with a false claim. We happened to win the war which means our side did not face a tribunal for war crimes. Numerous Germans were put to death for killing far fewer people.
Try reading past the first paragraph. No, I read nothing else you said after the false accusations and ad hominem. If you don't understand the 2nd paragraph blame your public school and request clarification.
My opinion of course, but Aristotle was the Philosophical equivalent to Machiavelli in terms of society. He was very much a Sophist and though a student of Plato he was not well liked. Socrates remember was anti-slavery, and full on equal rights (including women's rights) which at the time was unheard of. Plato held the same beliefs but saw society as always falling to corruption (why he "quit" being an Athenian and got out of politics). Aristotle believe that people like him should be pampered by the state and provided slaves and luxuries.
Bright in Math, but weak in Psychology, Sociology, and Political sciences in terms of "Public good".
Do you really and truly believe that everything happening is an accident? I'll simply ask you to reconsider, remembering that the US and UK funded and trained at least many of the rebels now being called ISIS. Zoom out and look at the picture with a wide angle lens. In the words of FDR, "In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way."
Next review the Hegelian Dialectic.
You can choose to ignore how all of these alleged accidents have specific results, or you can realize they are coordinated and planned. The former will be business as usual, the latter can result in change.
You could argue that what the IRS did made it more difficult for conservatives to get their message out,
How exactly is this not attacking freedom of speech? I would agree that there are multiple simultaneous attacks occurring, but you seem to be minimizing this particular vector for some reason.
If you are harassed for an activity, other people see that harassment and are less likely to perform the same action. Example: If you bomb 20 people with guns how likely are other people to go get a gun? You may not have caused direct bodily harm to all of those people, but you have still attacked a much larger populace than your 20 bombs killed.
Correction, in haste rushing out the door for work I gave the wrong quote. It should have been "security of a free State" but the definition of security is the same as in other amendments of the Constitution, such as the 5th amendment.
I fully understand what a billion is, you simply failed to do any research into how much money is spent on "no to labeling" campaigns. Look at how much money was spent in Colorado alone during the last election cycle where GMO labeling was on the ballot. Monsanto alone spent over 10milion dollars on this one small market. Now go through each state and see how much money is spent on these campaigns by all of the GMO producers, because states like New York and California saw similar or more spending. The sums being spent are enormous. Below is from the article linked last, and is 1 market 1 voting cycle (California). Now add up what Monsanto, Dupont, etc.. has spent Nationally in all markets.
Companies and their donations to keep GMO off of labels in California: Ironically most of the companies lobbying against Prop 37 have a stake in the organic industry. See that list below, it might surprise you.
Monsanto = $7,100,000.
DuPont = $5,200,000.
PepsiCo Inc. = $2,500,000.
BASF Plant Science = $2,000,000.
Bayer CropScience = $2,000,000.
Dow Agrosciences = $2,000,000.
Syngenta Corp = $2,000,000.
Kraft Foods = $2,000,000.
Coca-Cola = $1,700,000.
Nestle USA = $1,315,400.
ConAgra Foods = $1,200,000.
General Mills = $1,200,000.
Del Monte = $674,000.
Kellogg Co. = $790,700.
Smithfield = $671,000.
Council for Biotechnology Information = $625,000.
Heinz = $500,000.
Hershey Company = $493,900.
J.M. Smucker Co. = $555,000.
Grocery Manufacturers Association = $375,000.
Hormel Foods Corp. = $374,300.
Unilever = $ 460,000.
Mars Food North America = $370,280.
Bimbo Bakeries USA = $422,900.
Ocean Spray Cranberries = $326,500.
Campbell Soup Co. = $320,455.
Pinnacle Foods Group LLC = $266,100.
Dean Foods Co. = $253,950.
Biotech Industry Organization = $250,000.
McCormick & Co. Inc. = $248,200.
Abbott Nutrition (Infant Formulas / Similac) = $230,900.
Rich Products Corp. = $225,500.
Cargill Inc. = $226,800.
Welch's = $167,000.
Knouse Foods Cooperative = $160,300.
W.M. Wrigley Jr. Co. = $116,900.
Sunny Delight Beverages Co. = $114,500.
Tree Top = $110,300.
Bumble Bee Foods = $98,000.
Sara Lee Corp. = $96,800.
Hillshire Brands (Ball Park, Jimmy Dean) = $86,000.
McCain Foods USA = $50,600.
Dole Packaged Foods Co. = $45,580.
Goya = $ 56,100.
Clorox = $33,000.
S & W = $21,100.
The second amendment does claim this. .. to be secure in their person .. which means "free". A person living under and oppressive government is not free, therefor not secure. The language used in the Constitution is beautifully written, and full of intentional generalizations.
Studying Plato's "The Republic" will give people insight into politicians, their shitty actions, their ability to bullshit people, and give them some tools to see through the rhetoric and be more impacting to their Government. I have been saying for decades that we need to get these classes back into schools and teach rhetoric and logic to a much younger age instead of restricting this to very few people at a college level.
Oh wait, this is PLATO which has nothing to do with political thought.. Yes, lets continue to neglect educating people about those dangerous bits of knowledge and continue pushing the industrial education system. Nothing new here.
You are one of those idiots that can not decipher the meaning of "do not expect", and confuse it with "refusal". They are not synonymous.
Probably because you get taught that dangling metal on a necklace is just as dangerous as a metal ring. Same with a bracelet, watch, earring, etc...
Yup, I have seen people use leather so it's safer but it is a bad habit to get into. The safest rule is to remove all jewelry when working on electronics without exception.. but them in your pocket until you are done.
Nobody cares about their damn privacy.
Generalization fallacy, sorry pal but you don't speak for everyone. Every single person I work with cares, and there was a good amount of turnover in the mid-terms. Considering we have a problem with having only 2 candidates each from the major party on the ballots it can surely get better, but _we_ must work to get these people on ballots.
You also fail to consider the amount of propaganda the media puts out to prevent voting, and prevents voting for non D or R candidates. Again, it's our job to fix that and _we_ must use word of mouth to force a change.
Notice that both of those statements included "_we_ must work" because nobody will do it for us, we don't control the media an establishment does. Not easy, I agree, but complacency is not going to change anything.
There is more collusion amongst the automakers than there is competition. It is up to us to pry open their books if we are going to attempt to 'keep them honest'. As publicly held companies, they are not entitled to any real privacy themselves. A few surprise inspections is the only way to determine if they do what they say.
To an extent sure, but I think FOIA rejections based on claims of national security are enough to let you know this won't do any damn good after the fact.
Actually it has concern has little to do with 'a certified union' and is more of a concern with the epidemic of single mothers forced to live on social welfare programs to support their kids, being given incentives to not have 2 parent families, and punished by the welfare systems if they attempt to establish or maintain a two parent household.
http://newsblogs.chicagotribun...
http://www.census.gov/prod/201...
http://www.actrochester.org/ch...
http://www.crosswalk.com/blogs...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
These are just a few examples of the concern and impact this is having on society, and especially effecting certain ethnic groups.
Unfortunately while all of the corruption exist in Government this won't be fixed. You can do your own searching to find out why that is, but I'll give you a hint. Milton Friedman was one of many that explained this situation and why people want it that way.
Thank goodness you are posting anonymously, he will never be able to figure that one out!
So the first step is to look at the logs and see if the rejection message has any information in it. Do the rejection messages at YAHOO and HOTMAIL have the same code?
They won't, each major ISP uses their own codes and return strings. They do follow RFC, 400 is a deferral and 500 are rejections, but both will return their own custom of 4xx and 5xx.
A huge problem with Yahoo, AOL, and Hotmail is that they won't provide much information on why you are being deferred or rejected. You can sign up for their feedback loops and start looking for where they get complaints. Working at an ISP one of the best is that customers forward mail from our servers to a Yahoo account and then mark it as Spam which gets our servers into the Yahoo shit list. Yes, they are too lazy to determine when mail is forwarded to a single recipient, and have refused to fix this issue for over a decade. They also allow a single user to submit the same 1 message as spam as often as they want. We have had single Yahoo mail accounts submit the same exact message tens of thousands causing our servers to be hard rejected. I personally hate them, and yes I have reason for my hate.
Gmail does return some pretty good text with their rejections and deferrals. Reading the messages will usually point out the problem, at least from the Google point of view.
If you are not already doing so, run SpamAssassin which can rate outbound mail and places headers in the mail so you can trace problems. One of your connecting clients may be in a RBL and not know it, which may cause rejections. I'd also recommend something like Cloudmark plugged in, or at least DCC. Quarantine mail detected as spam and see what's going on.
Ubbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbuntu?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBtN1i3O4fY
Probably not work safe, nor politically correct.
Got it, you can't read, can't support your opinion, and can't do any research so are merely a troll. Thanks for the clarification.