How does getting your email client trying to spoof a bounce, help when the upstream email server has ALREADY accepted the email as legitimate for delivery?
As another user noted, your creating backscatter, and any email systems using basic SPAM filtering, will automatically drop the email from you.
Would be brilliant if there was anything interesting on!
Seriously.. all TV related technology is kind of meh these days because ultimately you are choosing between 50 different reality TV shows, maybe one or two token sitcoms/dramas and re-runs of real shows you’ve already seen and probably already own the DVD.
It’s not like music where there is enough variety that you can be taken aback by some band you didn’t even know existed. There is a limited amount of TV programming, and if you had any interest in it, you’ve probably already seen it or are at least aware of it.
I take objection to this, on my TV there's at least 100 reality shows! Could there really ever be ENOUGH reality shows? Or Paris Hilton stories?
And my wife says there real so that's good enough for me!
I like the fact that they are awarding the idea of open government and open corporatism, but what has been released that has been worth all the hub-bub?
We could tell you but the U.S. gov would then probably have to kill you!
I think apart from the extra money dipping due to rapid technology changes in multimedia, that this is also part of the gradual conditioning, in order to get the masses accustomed to the concept of "ownership" being replaced with "licensed".
Isn't the fact that it's "good, free, and open" the exact reasons the publishers wouldn't use it? It kinda flies in the face of them being tyrannical mongrels controlling the media distribution if customers can actually meaningfully use it.
And yet there's a huge fan club for the old IBM style "clickity" keyboards you had to bash!
I must admit to being one of the fans! I probably developed most of my arm muscles using an older keyboard when I was younger.
Yeah but it probably failed cause it didn't STAR the Hoff! If they even just had a lifesize cardboard replica of him in the back of every scene I have no doubt it would have been bigger than the Simpsons!
If Google Apps was good enough for HBGary Federal, the worlds bestest and mostest talented security corporation, it shoudld be good enough for the CTU!
Was Independence Day a film? I thought it was a really long PR ad for the U.S.? Kind of like the recent AD "Australia" with Hugh Jackman and Nicole Kidman.
The opening of a socket was implied as we all all know you can't do anything unless you do that first, I know I always open a socket before I do anything at work, even getting a coffee!
The scene where Chloe and Bill are trying to hack into the CTU and she says "I'll get in through the subnet"!
I loved 24 but I recall I had involuntary muscle spams when I heard that line of crud.
People stand up to the Phelps' gang all the goddamned time. They show up to shield grieving families as they bury their sons and daughters. They show up at Phelps' disgusting little protests and have their own counterprotests. What those who march out against Phelps and his gang of twisted monsters, and indeed even Phelps and his gang of monsters don't do, is hide behind masks like cowards. I'll give that evil bastard Phelps his due, he's got the courage of his twisted convictions, unlike those pathetic worthless Anonymous members.
There's the problem, why should people not only have to endure hateful groups like WBC, AND also have to use their own tactics against them?
I couldn't think of anything worse than having to deal with burying my son, and then having to hire or get groups to protect my family against groups like the WBC during the funeral, turning what is absolutely the worst day in the life of a parent into a circus, forever destroying the emotional release and diginified celebration of a life which is a large aspect of funerals and the healing process! Free speech be damned, this isn't at all about free speech, this is entirely about hateful groups that get away for some reason by knowing how to push the boundaries of human decency, to further their own despicable agenda inflicting horrific mental pain and hurt at others just trying to cope with life during traumatic events.
Under no circumstances should behaviour like this be tolerated or justified.
So you would suggest that WBC should just be able to keep doing what they do best, victimise and harass people and families during the time of their greatest despair? I guess this is okay seeing as they are just a "tiny (just one family I believe) group of fringe fanatics that everybody laughs at"?
At what point does anyone have the balls and the decency to stand up and say "heaping so much hatred and stress to bereaved familes because it's freedom of speech is a crap excuse for being a worthless human"?
Well regardless of their good or bad intentions as some say, Anon have done just that.
I'm sure the families victimised by Jennifer Petkov (seriously google it) could just "brush off" the torment they received as Jennifers right to free speech!
The right to free speech ends when it is war or hate mongering as in WBC, and/or targets people in a victimising or harassing way, again as in WBC.
So to all those who think WBC has every right to continue their harrassment, instead of it being some unknown individual copping it, just picture it being YOUR mum or dad, or sister or brother, being on the receiving end, and then see if you still think "free speech' is fine?
Although a lot of UNI/higher ED can be insanely boring, I kinda tend to think that at a minimum there should be a list of run of the mill social networking sites, among othes, that shouldn't be able to be accessed from wi-fi during lectures/classes. ACL's should be able to be implimented quite easily based on registered MAC's and class schedules. Although the MAC's being registered presents ethical and legal problems itself. Don't really know what the answer is here, but I know myself when I was at UNI the dopes that were there only to avoid having to work for the dole were very distracting and annoying. If they had also had laptops in class it would have been murder listening to "check this out maaaate" constantly during lectures.
Where is this "Federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison you speak of? Someone at work took my stapler so I'd like to arrange for him/her to be sent there once convicted!
The only difference is that people like Richard Dawkins are actually very talented and educated people,
It may suprise you that it is possible to be intelligent AND believe in the supernatural. As Stephen Gould famously put it,
"Either half my colleagues are enormously stupid, or else the science of Darwinism is fully compatible with conventional religious beliefs—and equally compatible with atheism."
Quotes are always great, here's one I like from no less than the esteemed US Governor "Jessy "the body" Ventura:
"Organized religion is a sham and a crutch for weak-minded people who need strength in numbers. It tells people to go out and stick their noses in other people's business."
And another great one from George Bernard Shaw:
"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality."
I would extend his argument to just about any belief-- just because it may be wrong (be it scientific, religious, or political), doesnt mean you have to be a moron to believe it.
If I believe I can fly by taping feathers to my arms does that make me a moron? Or is EVERY level of irrationality or stupidity perfectly acceptable in order to attempt to throw some form of legitimacy on or promote someone's totally illogical and UNVERIFIABLE view and opinion?
believe that the bible (created by MEN centuries AFTER the supposed birth of Christ)
No, not really, they are right up there with my other favourite (literal) fictional books, the Illiad, the Golden Fleece, and of course "Christine by Stephen King. Btw, do some research on how the church refused dissemination over the decades on the contents of the dead sea scrolls as initial discoveries indicated it contradicted the modern churchs teachings and standing. It's quite interesting.
The second part of your comment is indeed correct, and is kinda given in big letters by the title "Primary Programming"! It is therefore quite reasonable, and scientifically testable, to argue that anyone indoctrinated into religion very early on WILL have their ability to logically reason affected, with the religious arguments against evolution being just one perfect example of this programming pattern.
Do you honestly think centuries of theologians just didn't think of that? When your eight year old daughter happens to "disprove" a two thousand year old belief system, think a bit harder.
Except that the "centuries of theologians" were generally brought up in the equivalent of the dark ages when it came to anything approaching critical understanding and sciences, so your silly little argument is invalid! Anyone who generally showed rationality and common sense towards the bible and religion, tended to be, you know, tortured, mutilated, outcast, etc, which was kind of a disincentive for people to speak their mind. It's only in very recent history that there has been enough freedom from the threat of death/torture that people can openly speak their minds and express their beliefs one way or another. I shall now throw a cow at you!
I see posts like this often, and I would appreciate it if some clarification/justification would be provided for this post. Do you mean to claim that anyone with a belief in the supernatural lacks higher cognitive function? Do you claim that noone raised with an athiestic upbringing has ever converted to any sort of belief in the supernatural?
The OP's remarks were quite clear and dead right so I don't understand what trouble your having with needing clarification? He/she never stated anything about the impossibility of being converted as you seem to be trolling. All he/she's done is affirm the very well acknowledged and established practice, that churches via religion get their hooks into kids during their most critical ages, before the age of about 7-8 where their personalities and attitudes are formed, and become a firm part of their nature and belief system. Personally, anyone who can argue that for some extremely bizarre reason a ridiculously petty and teasing God filled a garden with fruit that we couldn't eat, AND had a talking snake (who could fly according to Gervais:-) ), and then argues that man roamed the earth with the dinosaurs, if they ever existed anyway, and that evolution is crap, really does lack higher cognitive function!
Slashdot Mirror
How does getting your email client trying to spoof a bounce, help when the upstream email server has ALREADY accepted the email as legitimate for delivery? As another user noted, your creating backscatter, and any email systems using basic SPAM filtering, will automatically drop the email from you.
Would be brilliant if there was anything interesting on!
Seriously.. all TV related technology is kind of meh these days because ultimately you are choosing between 50 different reality TV shows, maybe one or two token sitcoms/dramas and re-runs of real shows you’ve already seen and probably already own the DVD.
It’s not like music where there is enough variety that you can be taken aback by some band you didn’t even know existed. There is a limited amount of TV programming, and if you had any interest in it, you’ve probably already seen it or are at least aware of it.
I take objection to this, on my TV there's at least 100 reality shows! Could there really ever be ENOUGH reality shows? Or Paris Hilton stories? And my wife says there real so that's good enough for me!
I like the fact that they are awarding the idea of open government and open corporatism, but what has been released that has been worth all the hub-bub?
We could tell you but the U.S. gov would then probably have to kill you!
This is exactly the point that a lot of people clearly don't get judging from the number of Facebook/Wikileaks comparisons!
I think apart from the extra money dipping due to rapid technology changes in multimedia, that this is also part of the gradual conditioning, in order to get the masses accustomed to the concept of "ownership" being replaced with "licensed".
Isn't the fact that it's "good, free, and open" the exact reasons the publishers wouldn't use it? It kinda flies in the face of them being tyrannical mongrels controlling the media distribution if customers can actually meaningfully use it.
And yet there's a huge fan club for the old IBM style "clickity" keyboards you had to bash! I must admit to being one of the fans! I probably developed most of my arm muscles using an older keyboard when I was younger.
Yeah but it probably failed cause it didn't STAR the Hoff! If they even just had a lifesize cardboard replica of him in the back of every scene I have no doubt it would have been bigger than the Simpsons!
If Google Apps was good enough for HBGary Federal, the worlds bestest and mostest talented security corporation, it shoudld be good enough for the CTU!
There's those Galactic Standards for methods of data transfer in action! See, standards DO work!
Was Independence Day a film? I thought it was a really long PR ad for the U.S.? Kind of like the recent AD "Australia" with Hugh Jackman and Nicole Kidman.
The opening of a socket was implied as we all all know you can't do anything unless you do that first, I know I always open a socket before I do anything at work, even getting a coffee!
But to be fair, it was made for and starred Tom Cruise after all! Is there no beginning to his talents?
The scene where Chloe and Bill are trying to hack into the CTU and she says "I'll get in through the subnet"! I loved 24 but I recall I had involuntary muscle spams when I heard that line of crud.
People stand up to the Phelps' gang all the goddamned time. They show up to shield grieving families as they bury their sons and daughters. They show up at Phelps' disgusting little protests and have their own counterprotests. What those who march out against Phelps and his gang of twisted monsters, and indeed even Phelps and his gang of monsters don't do, is hide behind masks like cowards. I'll give that evil bastard Phelps his due, he's got the courage of his twisted convictions, unlike those pathetic worthless Anonymous members.
There's the problem, why should people not only have to endure hateful groups like WBC, AND also have to use their own tactics against them? I couldn't think of anything worse than having to deal with burying my son, and then having to hire or get groups to protect my family against groups like the WBC during the funeral, turning what is absolutely the worst day in the life of a parent into a circus, forever destroying the emotional release and diginified celebration of a life which is a large aspect of funerals and the healing process! Free speech be damned, this isn't at all about free speech, this is entirely about hateful groups that get away for some reason by knowing how to push the boundaries of human decency, to further their own despicable agenda inflicting horrific mental pain and hurt at others just trying to cope with life during traumatic events. Under no circumstances should behaviour like this be tolerated or justified.
So you would suggest that WBC should just be able to keep doing what they do best, victimise and harass people and families during the time of their greatest despair? I guess this is okay seeing as they are just a "tiny (just one family I believe) group of fringe fanatics that everybody laughs at"? At what point does anyone have the balls and the decency to stand up and say "heaping so much hatred and stress to bereaved familes because it's freedom of speech is a crap excuse for being a worthless human"? Well regardless of their good or bad intentions as some say, Anon have done just that. I'm sure the families victimised by Jennifer Petkov (seriously google it) could just "brush off" the torment they received as Jennifers right to free speech! The right to free speech ends when it is war or hate mongering as in WBC, and/or targets people in a victimising or harassing way, again as in WBC. So to all those who think WBC has every right to continue their harrassment, instead of it being some unknown individual copping it, just picture it being YOUR mum or dad, or sister or brother, being on the receiving end, and then see if you still think "free speech' is fine?
Although a lot of UNI/higher ED can be insanely boring, I kinda tend to think that at a minimum there should be a list of run of the mill social networking sites, among othes, that shouldn't be able to be accessed from wi-fi during lectures/classes. ACL's should be able to be implimented quite easily based on registered MAC's and class schedules. Although the MAC's being registered presents ethical and legal problems itself. Don't really know what the answer is here, but I know myself when I was at UNI the dopes that were there only to avoid having to work for the dole were very distracting and annoying. If they had also had laptops in class it would have been murder listening to "check this out maaaate" constantly during lectures.
Should everyone, no matter how minor or severe the infraction, be sent to Federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison,
Where is this "Federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison you speak of? Someone at work took my stapler so I'd like to arrange for him/her to be sent there once convicted!
The only difference is that people like Richard Dawkins are actually very talented and educated people,
It may suprise you that it is possible to be intelligent AND believe in the supernatural. As Stephen Gould famously put it,
"Either half my colleagues are enormously stupid, or else the science of Darwinism is fully compatible with conventional religious beliefs—and equally compatible with atheism."
Quotes are always great, here's one I like from no less than the esteemed US Governor "Jessy "the body" Ventura: "Organized religion is a sham and a crutch for weak-minded people who need strength in numbers. It tells people to go out and stick their noses in other people's business." And another great one from George Bernard Shaw: "The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality."
I would extend his argument to just about any belief-- just because it may be wrong (be it scientific, religious, or political), doesnt mean you have to be a moron to believe it.
If I believe I can fly by taping feathers to my arms does that make me a moron? Or is EVERY level of irrationality or stupidity perfectly acceptable in order to attempt to throw some form of legitimacy on or promote someone's totally illogical and UNVERIFIABLE view and opinion?
believe that the bible (created by MEN centuries AFTER the supposed birth of Christ)
Youre going to have a rather tough time explaining the Septuagint or the Dead Sea Scrolls.
No, not really, they are right up there with my other favourite (literal) fictional books, the Illiad, the Golden Fleece, and of course "Christine by Stephen King. Btw, do some research on how the church refused dissemination over the decades on the contents of the dead sea scrolls as initial discoveries indicated it contradicted the modern churchs teachings and standing. It's quite interesting.
The second part of your comment is indeed correct, and is kinda given in big letters by the title "Primary Programming"! It is therefore quite reasonable, and scientifically testable, to argue that anyone indoctrinated into religion very early on WILL have their ability to logically reason affected, with the religious arguments against evolution being just one perfect example of this programming pattern.
Didn't the bible state "GOD created everything"? Therefore it's at all a stretch that he found liable.
Dammit, GOD's been messing with my keyboard, should have read "Therefore it's NOT at all a stretch that he found liable.
Didn't the bible state "GOD created everything"? Therefore it's at all a stretch that he found liable.
Do you honestly think centuries of theologians just didn't think of that? When your eight year old daughter happens to "disprove" a two thousand year old belief system, think a bit harder.
Except that the "centuries of theologians" were generally brought up in the equivalent of the dark ages when it came to anything approaching critical understanding and sciences, so your silly little argument is invalid! Anyone who generally showed rationality and common sense towards the bible and religion, tended to be, you know, tortured, mutilated, outcast, etc, which was kind of a disincentive for people to speak their mind. It's only in very recent history that there has been enough freedom from the threat of death/torture that people can openly speak their minds and express their beliefs one way or another. I shall now throw a cow at you!
I see posts like this often, and I would appreciate it if some clarification/justification would be provided for this post. Do you mean to claim that anyone with a belief in the supernatural lacks higher cognitive function? Do you claim that noone raised with an athiestic upbringing has ever converted to any sort of belief in the supernatural?
The OP's remarks were quite clear and dead right so I don't understand what trouble your having with needing clarification? He/she never stated anything about the impossibility of being converted as you seem to be trolling. All he/she's done is affirm the very well acknowledged and established practice, that churches via religion get their hooks into kids during their most critical ages, before the age of about 7-8 where their personalities and attitudes are formed, and become a firm part of their nature and belief system. Personally, anyone who can argue that for some extremely bizarre reason a ridiculously petty and teasing God filled a garden with fruit that we couldn't eat, AND had a talking snake (who could fly according to Gervais :-) ), and then argues that man roamed the earth with the dinosaurs, if they ever existed anyway, and that evolution is crap, really does lack higher cognitive function!
Careful -- if god is responsible for everything, doesn't that make him an evil fuck-wad?
Only if it's God's Will to be an evil fuck-wad! Or would that be "Holy evil fuck-wad"?