This is the just the "GCHQ spied on Trump for Obama" claim. Even Fox News has repudiated that they ever said any such thing, and Napolitano has been revealed as a conspiracy theorist
This is the guy that probably sunk Clinton's campaign, so I'd hardly call him a Democrat cheerleader. He looks more like the rarer of beasts, a Ness-like bull dog.
And you understand here that even if you fire Comney, the FBI will continue its investigation, and any attempt by Trump to block that would be a massive abuse of power, and now that Sessions has recused himself, whatever control Trump does indirectly have has been severed.
He was the Republicans' bestest friend when he was after Clinton. Now all of sudden, the shoe is on the other foot, and he's the bad guy.
It's hilarious thought... no evidence of Obama wiretapping Trump, and confirmation that the FBI is investigating links between Trump's campaign and Russia.
What I find interesting is why anyone puts stock in religious or mythical beliefs that really ultimately were just, at best, wild conjecture, and likely just as often just good old fashioned fabrication. We didn't really begin to have a good scientifically-based notion that the Earth was very old until the 18th century as the science of geology began to form.
I love reading ancient myths, whether they be the Bible or the Vedas. They give us an extraordinary window on ancient cultures, on their structures, on their worldview and their aspirations. The one thing such works are not very good for is determining the age of the Earth, of the Universe, or how life formed and evolved. In many cases, ancient myth-writers had such flawed views of the natural world that their writings weren't even wrong. I can forgive them, they lived before any kind of reliable naturalistic methodologies existed. I can't really forgive modern Creationists, however. Embracing some silly Bronze Age person's notion of the universe and rejecting modern science is just plain idiotic.
Why not filter outgoing mail through Spamassassin? I've been doing that for many years, Postfix-Spamassassin-ClamAV with Postgrey is about as good as it gets, and since I don't want my servers puking spam and malware, I treat all messages with suspicion.
Apart from the fact that spammers are increasingly using legitimate email services for spam (which means, regardless of DMARC and SPF, means you're right back to Bayesian filters), the fundamental problem with DMARC, SPF or any other kind of email "authentication" system is that it fundamentally constitutes a chicken-and-egg problem. Without widescale adoption, you can't really use these techniques as a binary deliver/drop test, but so long as you can't filter email on the presence of an SPF or DMARC header, there's very little incentive for many smaller MTA admins to use such techniques. You would need widescale adoption of some large enough group of MTAs to create a tipping point, and seeing as DMARC and SPF have been around well over a decade now, it's pretty clear it's not going to happen.
I've found greylisting to certainly cut down a lot. It's effectiveness as decreased over time as spammers switch to using proper mail servers instead of PHP or COM SMTP classes, but it still nails the bulk of spam.
Thank you. It's good to see the ol' "your anti-spam technique is a fail" form. Christ, I bet you can go back 11 or 12 years and see this exact same story on Slashdot.
It boils down to this. If you want your MTA to function as a general open email transport system, you cannot kill messages based upon whether they pass or fail solutions like DMARC. There's some logic to weighting failures of SPF checks and the like to make it more likely that a failed message will be rejected, but to actual use SPF and its kin as a sort of yes/no logic gate would lead to an unbelievable number of false positives, and I question the legitimacy of anyone claiming to be some sort of cybersecurity expert who claims such solutions are the be-all and end-all.
Christ, where is your theater? The deepest darkest jungles of Peru? I don't think our crappy little local theater has had an actual film projector in years.
Christ yes! Microwave popcorn is surely one of the signs of the Apocalypse and an abomination before the Lord. "And lo I did see the fifth rider, and he rode in on a rubbery margarine-flavored piece of popped corn, and the name written on the bib tied around his puffy neck was 'Tastes like old shoes'."
Apart from refurbs, it's getting harder to buy machines with Windows 7 on them. We saw the writing on the wall last year, and, with a great deal of trepidation and no small amount of regret, bumped up to Win10. While Windows 10 does run better on older hardware (we've got eight year old Dell towers with 2gb to 3gb of RAM which run it fine), I still simply do not like Windows 10 at all. But seeing as we are in an Office/Backoffice ecosystem there doesn't seem to be any real escape.
There are any number of books I am sure that you would have a hard time finding via mainstream booksellers. In fact, a lot of the White Supremacist "publications" (which historically have been mimeographed periodicals without much in the way of a publisher at all) are an example of the kinds of works that few if any mainstream booksellers would ever touch. For mainstream book and magazine distributors and retailers, stocking such works would likely constitute considerable reputational risk, and certainly aren't worth the potential PR problems, not to mention the fact that they aren't likely to be very big sellers at all.
Do I feel I have been injured because Barnes and Noble and Amazon, or hell, the local magazine shop won't sell copies of American Renaissance or The Crusader? No, not particularly, and not just because I find the magazines appalling and loath everything they represent, but also because these are all private businesses that are not even the smallest bit obliged to stock every conceivable publication out there, lest someone like you declare "You're a censor!" I equally support a Catholic bookstore's right not to stock pro-choice literature or Wiccan spellbooks.
Google is in precisely the same position. Giving high rankings to blatantly racist sites has the same capacity for reputational damage as does B&N stocking copies of The Crusader. For all these *businesses*, reputational damage means a potential of real harm to shareholder interests, not to mention what doubtless at least some of these companies view as their responsibility to society not to be disseminators of hate literature. No one is blocking you from buying this kind of literature or reading these kinds of web sites, but they do not have any obligation to assist in procuring them. And that's the only point that counts. No private entity has any obligation to you in this regard, unless you and they have signed a contract explicitly laying out that obligation beforehand. Seeing as Google has been known for many years to filter its search results, you have agreed by using Google's search engine to accept the results it provides.
The "right" and "wrong" of this is something that you and Google as entities in a free country have the right to agree or disagree upon. You obviously feel it is wrong that Google will filter anti-Semitic results, so your remedy is simple. Don't use Google. The same goes for Amazon or Barnes and Noble. If you feel offended that they don't stock The Crusader, don't go into the store.
The only thing the First Amendment bans is government censorship. If you're in my house and you start spouting anti-Semitic nonsense, I am completely within my rights to have you removed. Private individuals and organizations are not bound by First Amendment constraints.
I wasn't aware that a gun had been placed to your head and that you were required to use Google for your online searches. I do hope you're freed from this tyrannical situation as soon as possible. Can you provide your location? We can call the police.
I love the spelling mistakes in this anti-Semitic diatribe. It really underlines the rabid and mindless hatred of the anti-Semite. What's next, a link to the picture of Churchill as the vile "Jew Lover"?
The Dreyfus Affair shows that even in late 19th and early 20th century France, a country that at that time was seen as one of the most modern and cosmopolitan nations in the world, anti-Semitism was rife throughout all sections of society. The Nazis had plenty of fuel to work with both in Germany and in Occupied Europe. An entire continent was populated by people whose sentiments ranged from benign anti-Semitism of "I like the Jewish baker down the street, he's not like most of those money-grubbing Jews" to Wagner's infamous "I hold the Jewish race to be the born enemy of pure humanity and everything noble in it."
Exactly. One of the reasons that anti-Semitism is such a poison is because it seems to so easily seep into a population. The Nazis didn't invent hatred of the Jew. That had been an aspect of Christianity for centuries, almost back to the first few centuries after Christ (and itself was largely an outgrowth of Hellenic dislike for Jews). The Holocaust happened because while the Nazis ramped up the anti-Semitic rhetoric, they didn't invent it, and indeed, many of the anti-Semitic tropes that made up Nazi rhetoric before and after taking power were simply more emphatic declarations of traditional anti-Semitic claims. The "money-grubbing Jew" dates back to the Middle Ages, and is the source of much of 19th and 20th century anti-Semitic propaganda; the "money-grubbing Jew" easily being transformed into the "Jewish banker" and the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" and other still all-very often repeated anti-Semitic claims.
While countries like Germany have made pretty good strides in defeating "nativist" anti-Semitism (though they have a pretty big problem with the variants being brought over from the Middle East), it has never really been rooted out in Russian society, and strains of it have survived in Western Europe and the Americas.
Let's pretend for a minute that the Axis Powers didn't make unjust war on their neighbors and didn't kill millions in a quest to forge vast empires in Eurasia and Oceania. Let's find a way to blame the Allies for the sheer audacity of responding with massive force to the threat of Fascism and Authoritarianism. Let's further try to create a moral equivalency, so that way we can minimize the vast crimes of the Axis Powers with the inevitable conduct of the Allied Powers as they sought to crush the Axis Powers, to prevent them ever being a threat to world peace again.
Everyone knew the Soviets were bastards. But as Churchill famously said when Members of Parliament tried to make the same claim you did: "If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favourable reference to the devil in the House of Commons." Britain, at least, was in no position to pick its allies. It knew what kind of people the Soviet Communists were. It knew about the Ribbentrop-Molotov. It knew about the Katyn Massacre. And really, Britain and the US were hardly the first countries to adopt the age-old credo, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."
And as you condemn the Soviets for their conduct during the War, it's useful to remind people like you that the USSR suffered the heaviest civilian casualties of WWII, and that further, the only other major world figure besides Churchill who wanted to go after Nazi Germany prior to WWII was Joseph Stalin, and it was largely because Britain, France and the US showed little appetite for toppling the Nazis that the Soviets even contemplated any kind of deals, open and secret, with Nazi Germany.
I think you're going to find for a lot of Holocaust deniers, the sentiments may not be as mutually contradictory as you think. For them, the Holocaust is a lie concocted by the evil Jews as part of their grand scheme to control world sentiment, and thus control the world, and thus, while they may assert the Holocaust is a lie, most wish it had been considerably more successful.
Slashdot Mirror
This is the just the "GCHQ spied on Trump for Obama" claim. Even Fox News has repudiated that they ever said any such thing, and Napolitano has been revealed as a conspiracy theorist
And here we go with the GCHQ claims. No, there is no such evidence.
Not only has Trump not apologized, but he's deliberately insulted the US's firmest foreign ally to try firm up his BS claim.
This is the guy that probably sunk Clinton's campaign, so I'd hardly call him a Democrat cheerleader. He looks more like the rarer of beasts, a Ness-like bull dog.
And you understand here that even if you fire Comney, the FBI will continue its investigation, and any attempt by Trump to block that would be a massive abuse of power, and now that Sessions has recused himself, whatever control Trump does indirectly have has been severed.
He was the Republicans' bestest friend when he was after Clinton. Now all of sudden, the shoe is on the other foot, and he's the bad guy.
It's hilarious thought... no evidence of Obama wiretapping Trump, and confirmation that the FBI is investigating links between Trump's campaign and Russia.
What I find interesting is why anyone puts stock in religious or mythical beliefs that really ultimately were just, at best, wild conjecture, and likely just as often just good old fashioned fabrication. We didn't really begin to have a good scientifically-based notion that the Earth was very old until the 18th century as the science of geology began to form.
I love reading ancient myths, whether they be the Bible or the Vedas. They give us an extraordinary window on ancient cultures, on their structures, on their worldview and their aspirations. The one thing such works are not very good for is determining the age of the Earth, of the Universe, or how life formed and evolved. In many cases, ancient myth-writers had such flawed views of the natural world that their writings weren't even wrong. I can forgive them, they lived before any kind of reliable naturalistic methodologies existed. I can't really forgive modern Creationists, however. Embracing some silly Bronze Age person's notion of the universe and rejecting modern science is just plain idiotic.
Why not filter outgoing mail through Spamassassin? I've been doing that for many years, Postfix-Spamassassin-ClamAV with Postgrey is about as good as it gets, and since I don't want my servers puking spam and malware, I treat all messages with suspicion.
I thought it was just a repackaged derivative of SpamAssassin.
Apart from the fact that spammers are increasingly using legitimate email services for spam (which means, regardless of DMARC and SPF, means you're right back to Bayesian filters), the fundamental problem with DMARC, SPF or any other kind of email "authentication" system is that it fundamentally constitutes a chicken-and-egg problem. Without widescale adoption, you can't really use these techniques as a binary deliver/drop test, but so long as you can't filter email on the presence of an SPF or DMARC header, there's very little incentive for many smaller MTA admins to use such techniques. You would need widescale adoption of some large enough group of MTAs to create a tipping point, and seeing as DMARC and SPF have been around well over a decade now, it's pretty clear it's not going to happen.
I've found greylisting to certainly cut down a lot. It's effectiveness as decreased over time as spammers switch to using proper mail servers instead of PHP or COM SMTP classes, but it still nails the bulk of spam.
Thank you. It's good to see the ol' "your anti-spam technique is a fail" form. Christ, I bet you can go back 11 or 12 years and see this exact same story on Slashdot.
It boils down to this. If you want your MTA to function as a general open email transport system, you cannot kill messages based upon whether they pass or fail solutions like DMARC. There's some logic to weighting failures of SPF checks and the like to make it more likely that a failed message will be rejected, but to actual use SPF and its kin as a sort of yes/no logic gate would lead to an unbelievable number of false positives, and I question the legitimacy of anyone claiming to be some sort of cybersecurity expert who claims such solutions are the be-all and end-all.
Christ, where is your theater? The deepest darkest jungles of Peru? I don't think our crappy little local theater has had an actual film projector in years.
Christ yes! Microwave popcorn is surely one of the signs of the Apocalypse and an abomination before the Lord. "And lo I did see the fifth rider, and he rode in on a rubbery margarine-flavored piece of popped corn, and the name written on the bib tied around his puffy neck was 'Tastes like old shoes'."
Apart from refurbs, it's getting harder to buy machines with Windows 7 on them. We saw the writing on the wall last year, and, with a great deal of trepidation and no small amount of regret, bumped up to Win10. While Windows 10 does run better on older hardware (we've got eight year old Dell towers with 2gb to 3gb of RAM which run it fine), I still simply do not like Windows 10 at all. But seeing as we are in an Office/Backoffice ecosystem there doesn't seem to be any real escape.
Google can do what it likes. If you want to read what white supremacists think, it's easy enough to find. Therefore no censorship.
There are any number of books I am sure that you would have a hard time finding via mainstream booksellers. In fact, a lot of the White Supremacist "publications" (which historically have been mimeographed periodicals without much in the way of a publisher at all) are an example of the kinds of works that few if any mainstream booksellers would ever touch. For mainstream book and magazine distributors and retailers, stocking such works would likely constitute considerable reputational risk, and certainly aren't worth the potential PR problems, not to mention the fact that they aren't likely to be very big sellers at all.
Do I feel I have been injured because Barnes and Noble and Amazon, or hell, the local magazine shop won't sell copies of American Renaissance or The Crusader? No, not particularly, and not just because I find the magazines appalling and loath everything they represent, but also because these are all private businesses that are not even the smallest bit obliged to stock every conceivable publication out there, lest someone like you declare "You're a censor!" I equally support a Catholic bookstore's right not to stock pro-choice literature or Wiccan spellbooks.
Google is in precisely the same position. Giving high rankings to blatantly racist sites has the same capacity for reputational damage as does B&N stocking copies of The Crusader. For all these *businesses*, reputational damage means a potential of real harm to shareholder interests, not to mention what doubtless at least some of these companies view as their responsibility to society not to be disseminators of hate literature. No one is blocking you from buying this kind of literature or reading these kinds of web sites, but they do not have any obligation to assist in procuring them. And that's the only point that counts. No private entity has any obligation to you in this regard, unless you and they have signed a contract explicitly laying out that obligation beforehand. Seeing as Google has been known for many years to filter its search results, you have agreed by using Google's search engine to accept the results it provides.
The "right" and "wrong" of this is something that you and Google as entities in a free country have the right to agree or disagree upon. You obviously feel it is wrong that Google will filter anti-Semitic results, so your remedy is simple. Don't use Google. The same goes for Amazon or Barnes and Noble. If you feel offended that they don't stock The Crusader, don't go into the store.
The only thing the First Amendment bans is government censorship. If you're in my house and you start spouting anti-Semitic nonsense, I am completely within my rights to have you removed. Private individuals and organizations are not bound by First Amendment constraints.
I wasn't aware that a gun had been placed to your head and that you were required to use Google for your online searches. I do hope you're freed from this tyrannical situation as soon as possible. Can you provide your location? We can call the police.
I'm actually surprised at the number of people with mod points who are anti-Semites. Fascinating, and sad.
I love the spelling mistakes in this anti-Semitic diatribe. It really underlines the rabid and mindless hatred of the anti-Semite. What's next, a link to the picture of Churchill as the vile "Jew Lover"?
The Dreyfus Affair shows that even in late 19th and early 20th century France, a country that at that time was seen as one of the most modern and cosmopolitan nations in the world, anti-Semitism was rife throughout all sections of society. The Nazis had plenty of fuel to work with both in Germany and in Occupied Europe. An entire continent was populated by people whose sentiments ranged from benign anti-Semitism of "I like the Jewish baker down the street, he's not like most of those money-grubbing Jews" to Wagner's infamous "I hold the Jewish race to be the born enemy of pure humanity and everything noble in it."
Exactly. One of the reasons that anti-Semitism is such a poison is because it seems to so easily seep into a population. The Nazis didn't invent hatred of the Jew. That had been an aspect of Christianity for centuries, almost back to the first few centuries after Christ (and itself was largely an outgrowth of Hellenic dislike for Jews). The Holocaust happened because while the Nazis ramped up the anti-Semitic rhetoric, they didn't invent it, and indeed, many of the anti-Semitic tropes that made up Nazi rhetoric before and after taking power were simply more emphatic declarations of traditional anti-Semitic claims. The "money-grubbing Jew" dates back to the Middle Ages, and is the source of much of 19th and 20th century anti-Semitic propaganda; the "money-grubbing Jew" easily being transformed into the "Jewish banker" and the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" and other still all-very often repeated anti-Semitic claims.
While countries like Germany have made pretty good strides in defeating "nativist" anti-Semitism (though they have a pretty big problem with the variants being brought over from the Middle East), it has never really been rooted out in Russian society, and strains of it have survived in Western Europe and the Americas.
Let's pretend for a minute that the Axis Powers didn't make unjust war on their neighbors and didn't kill millions in a quest to forge vast empires in Eurasia and Oceania. Let's find a way to blame the Allies for the sheer audacity of responding with massive force to the threat of Fascism and Authoritarianism. Let's further try to create a moral equivalency, so that way we can minimize the vast crimes of the Axis Powers with the inevitable conduct of the Allied Powers as they sought to crush the Axis Powers, to prevent them ever being a threat to world peace again.
Everyone knew the Soviets were bastards. But as Churchill famously said when Members of Parliament tried to make the same claim you did: "If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favourable reference to the devil in the House of Commons." Britain, at least, was in no position to pick its allies. It knew what kind of people the Soviet Communists were. It knew about the Ribbentrop-Molotov. It knew about the Katyn Massacre. And really, Britain and the US were hardly the first countries to adopt the age-old credo, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."
And as you condemn the Soviets for their conduct during the War, it's useful to remind people like you that the USSR suffered the heaviest civilian casualties of WWII, and that further, the only other major world figure besides Churchill who wanted to go after Nazi Germany prior to WWII was Joseph Stalin, and it was largely because Britain, France and the US showed little appetite for toppling the Nazis that the Soviets even contemplated any kind of deals, open and secret, with Nazi Germany.
I think you're going to find for a lot of Holocaust deniers, the sentiments may not be as mutually contradictory as you think. For them, the Holocaust is a lie concocted by the evil Jews as part of their grand scheme to control world sentiment, and thus control the world, and thus, while they may assert the Holocaust is a lie, most wish it had been considerably more successful.
I never regarded those so much as history lessons as such, more like object lessons in what had happened in the immediate past.
There are some pretty horrifying accounts from Allied soldiers liberating the death camps.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the...