If they have caught you sharing copyrighted materials, they don't need your email address to track you down - they already found you. So the only way they can enforce this law is after they have caught you by some means other than tracking down your email address. This is like "possession" laws. The prosecutor will charge you with this new crime only in conjunction with other charges. In other words, this lets the prosecutor pile up more and more charges against you, in the hope that if the jury kicks out the main charges, at least they can stick you with this one.
This is just how possession charges are used. The prosecutor might charge a defendant with murder, drug trafficking,conspiracy (there's another "crime" like this one) and possession, hoping that if the jury acquits on the murder and trafficking charges, they can still send you to jail for possession or conspiracy.
And those are just the kind of people I wouldn't care if they emailed me or not anyway.
And you're the kind of person pompous self-important person I hate having to correspond with. If I were attempting to establish a relationship of some kind with you, professional or otherwise, the TMDA notice serve as a gigantic "HERE THERE BE ASSHOLES" sign.
I solved my spam problem without inconveniencing any of my senders, or making them jump through hoops.
Those who I want to hear from know the spam struggle and don't have a problem to reply that ONE time to the address.
Then why aren't they already on your whitelist? Duh!
TMDA inconveniences legitimate correspondents. It is not your correspondents' job to manage your whitelist. If you want my email, you put me on your whitelist. I never respond to TMDA notices or other crap like that.
I flirted with libertarianism when I was in college, but soon realized the fundamental problem with it: all success is predicated on people behaving a certain way, a way which 10,000 years of human experience shows is antithetical to human nature. (This by the way, is true of many ideologies - communism, facsim, etc.)
I think you meant "fascism" not "facsim". Fascism does not require the cooperation or agreement of the people living under it. Fascism is government-imposed order under the direct point of a gun. A police state, in other words. There is nothing utopian about fascism, and unfortunately as history shows, nothing unrealistic about it either, since it endures to this day.
But I agree with the thrust of your point, that utopian ideologies seem to unrealistically expect the population living under its rule to have already been convinced that this is the way to order society. Otherwise it decays into what we have now, more or less. I posted a similar questuion to yours, but mine was also not modded up enough to make the grade.
Communism calls for the workers to revolt, so I suppose communism could stand a chance at succeeding, if it drew enough workers into the revolt to actually overthrow the owners of capital. But the chance of that seem slim as long as people would rather watch Survivor: Vanuatu.
But what does Libertarianism call for? Vote them out? They won't go peacefully - they own all the big weapons. Marx figured that out a century ago. Libertarianism is doomed to fail as soon as it succeeds. But maybe they'd set the stage for the Communist revolt to take over. (snicker)
It is said that a stateless Communist society, the pinnacle of Marxist philosophy, cannot arise in reality because it would require its citizens to become universally enlightened to Marxist thought and social consciousness before the system would ever become anything but anarchistic chaos, or authoritarian despotism.
Isn't that also a fair appraisal of what a Libertarian society would require of its citizens? If the citizens of Libertarianland are unable to recognize their own englightened self-interest, won't that make the pure Libertarian society as much a pipe dream as the pure Communist society?
Good! They're supposed to do that. This is the point of SPF, to give senders a way to identify where mail for their domain legitimately originates. If you see a SPF record that points to the address of a known spam-farm, I am sure you will figure out what to do with it.
I ignore all CR messages. Nobody's email is important enought to jump through those hoops. I'll call you by phone instead if I have something to say. If you get tired of me calling, you can add me to your whitelist yourself.
Re:Greens won't let us have it
on
Port-A-Nuke
·
· Score: 1
And you must be so incredibly full of hubris that it would never occur to you that someone might adopt a self-deprecating moniker, in an attempt to inject levity and keep people's panties from getting in such a fucking wad. Obviously, with you, this was a waste of effort.
Re:Greens won't let us have it
on
Port-A-Nuke
·
· Score: 1
Ok hippie, you keep telling yourself that. Meanwhile the rest of us who aren't stoned will live here in the real world.
So you think your shit stinks so little that anyone who dares disagree with you must be on drugs. Got it, Right-winger. Make sure your jackboots aren't too tight. Nasty blisters, you know.
Re:Greens won't let us have it
on
Port-A-Nuke
·
· Score: 1
Clinton was not on the left, Clinton was a big supporter of entrenched wealth, since he himself was a member of that club. You might call Kucinich on the left - middle-left. The United States has one party, with two right wings. You and I are not a consitutent of either wing.
Re:As a former nuclear navy reactor operator
on
Port-A-Nuke
·
· Score: 2, Funny
I can tell you that US Navy subs have had few catastophic disasters, and perhaps none at all for a long time.
That's pretty funny. You know enough to know that you probably don't know everything you think you know, but don't want us to know that.
"I can tell you that...."
See! He's on the inside. He's a former nuclear operator with the Navy (so am I, btw). I can tell you that they don't tell us everything. There was a funny myth circulating at the Naval Nuclear Power School in Orlando when I went thriough the training (it was training, not school), and that is that if you assembled 100 nuke school graduates, together they'd have enough expertise to build a nuclear plan from scratch.
Ha! Not a chance.
"...and perhaps none at all for a long time."
Hedging your bet! tee-hee... You know they didn't tell you everything, yet you can't resist posting on this thread from some imagined position of authority. Heh.
Btw, what year did you graduate from Nuke School? I went in 1983.
Re:Greens won't let us have it
on
Port-A-Nuke
·
· Score: 1
The awful truth is that we can build stable, non-bomb-making reactors (pebble bed reactors, for instance) and the loonie left won't even consider it.
In case you hadn't noticed, the left has not been in charge of anything for decades. It's the profiteers in existing energy technologies that are holding up alternatives. And like all the other things they are holding up, the plutocrats blame the left for it. Wise up. The left is powerless. They can't be blamed for shit, because no one on the left is in charge of shit.
MSFT figures that either Apache will kowtow after users get pissed that they cannot send to those behind an MS mail solution or that they will end up having to break down themselves later.
You do not need to run any Apache software to put some TXT records in your zone file. MSFT has no leverage over Apache or Apache users, because complying with the requirements that Sender-ID-enabled mail software will be checking doesn't involve any Apache software. Sender-ID records for your domain are configured in your DNS server, and doing so does not require a license from MS. Even if placing Sender-ID records in your zone file did require a license, that license would have to be between the DNS administrator and Microsoft, not the Apache project and not even the BIND company.
No mail server is ever required to check Sender-ID records, or anything else for that matter, in order to accept mail from MS products or any other MTA. You can accept whatever mail you want, regardless if it's Sender-ID checked, or forged, or the sender domains doesn't resolve, whatever you decide is your policy.
You can put SPF records in your domain's zone file indicating your host's IP address or its subnet, or the fully-qualified reverse name or the subdomain of the reverse domain. Or both.
yourdomain.com. IN TXT "v=spf1 ip4:1.2.3.4/32 ?all"
or
yourdomain.com. IN TXT "v=spf1 ptr:dsl.yourisp.net ?all"
I don't think you understand. I don't have to make my MTA check Sender-ID records if I don't wish to. That's where the encumbered part of Sender-ID lies. That Microsoft products are checking Sender-ID records has no effect whatsoever on my MTA that isn't checking them. I don't have to check Sender-ID to accept an email from anyone. The scenario you tried to use to refute my argument won't happen.
The worst that can happen is that I have to put a certain string in a TXT RR associated with my domain, if I want to be able to send mail to a Microsoft product that checks Sender-ID. Microsoft cannot force me or anyone else to check Sender-ID anymore than they can force me to run a spam filter.
Microsoft has a whole lot more leverage to push their own solution.
No they don't, not in this case. If Sender-ID client code is only deployed among Microsoft products, then communicating with Microsoft products may require an administrator to put some records in their domain zone file. Microsoft cannot yet prevent me from putting the DNS records in my zone that their software is looking for. I wouldn't put it past them to try, but it doesn't seem like they can have any IP claim over a string in a TXT record.
But I don't have to use or deploy any software that uses any Sender-ID patented algorithms. Email for my users will still be delivered as usual, whether my MTA checks Sender-ID records or not.
The worst that can happen is that people will face a choice of whether or not to put Sender-ID records in their DNS, if they wish to communicate with Microsoft products that enforce Sender-ID protocol.
Ambush, or guerilla, marketing is as undeniably effective as it is damaging, attracting consumers at the expense of competitors, all the while undermining an event's integrity and, most importantly, its ability to attract future sponsors.
So these events are not worthwhile in and of themselves. They are only worthwhile if a sponsor thinks they can make money off of sponsoring it.
I've been saying sports are not worthwhile since I was in high school, and people beat me up for it. Maybe I should have gong into marketing.
Good source. Basically, this report concludes that the Supreme Court has it in for the 9th, and for any other decision that rules in ways the SC disagrees with.
It is true that the overall reversal rate of the 9th Circuit (76%) was lower than that of some other federal appellate courts -- most notably the 2nd, 5th, 10th, 11th, D.C., and Federal Circuits, which were all reversed 100 percent of the time this past term.
Yet these "complete" reversal rates are likely caused by the U.S. Supreme Court's much less frequent review of those circuits along with the justices' proclivity to review cases in which they are predisposed to reverse the lower court's judgment. Specifically, the High Court decided only 19 cases from the 2nd, 5th, 10th, 11th, D.C., and Federal Circuits combined (two from the 2nd, six from the 5th, three from the 10th, four from the 11th, three from the D.C. Circuit, and one from the Federal Circuit), compared with the 25 cases the Supreme Court took up from the 9th Circuit alone, including the 19 that were reversed.
The Supreme Court has a vendetta against the 9th, in other words. No wonder they overturn them so often.
Slashdot Mirror
You're pretty uptight about homos, ain't ya?
If they have caught you sharing copyrighted materials, they don't need your email address to track you down - they already found you. So the only way they can enforce this law is after they have caught you by some means other than tracking down your email address. This is like "possession" laws. The prosecutor will charge you with this new crime only in conjunction with other charges. In other words, this lets the prosecutor pile up more and more charges against you, in the hope that if the jury kicks out the main charges, at least they can stick you with this one.
This is just how possession charges are used. The prosecutor might charge a defendant with murder, drug trafficking,conspiracy (there's another "crime" like this one) and possession, hoping that if the jury acquits on the murder and trafficking charges, they can still send you to jail for possession or conspiracy.
It's totally bogus for discouraging piracy.
And those are just the kind of people I wouldn't care if they emailed me or not anyway.
And you're the kind of person pompous self-important person I hate having to correspond with. If I were attempting to establish a relationship of some kind with you, professional or otherwise, the TMDA notice serve as a gigantic "HERE THERE BE ASSHOLES" sign.
I solved my spam problem without inconveniencing any of my senders, or making them jump through hoops.
Those who I want to hear from know the spam struggle and don't have a problem to reply that ONE time to the address.
Then why aren't they already on your whitelist? Duh!
Allow me to paraphrase Morbo:
Email does not work that way! Good night!
About a year ago a talked to my ISP about it and they said they could not use it as it did not scale well and could not handle big loads.
They're just being cheap. Yes, they will need more than one mail server. SA scales the same way LAMP scales: more boxes.
TMDA inconveniences legitimate correspondents. It is not your correspondents' job to manage your whitelist. If you want my email, you put me on your whitelist. I never respond to TMDA notices or other crap like that.
But they don't have a thing to say about the concentration of power elsewhere, except to whip out the market-worshipping.
I flirted with libertarianism when I was in college, but soon realized the fundamental problem with it: all success is predicated on people behaving a certain way, a way which 10,000 years of human experience shows is antithetical to human nature. (This by the way, is true of many ideologies - communism, facsim, etc.)
I think you meant "fascism" not "facsim". Fascism does not require the cooperation or agreement of the people living under it. Fascism is government-imposed order under the direct point of a gun. A police state, in other words. There is nothing utopian about fascism, and unfortunately as history shows, nothing unrealistic about it either, since it endures to this day.
But I agree with the thrust of your point, that utopian ideologies seem to unrealistically expect the population living under its rule to have already been convinced that this is the way to order society. Otherwise it decays into what we have now, more or less. I posted a similar questuion to yours, but mine was also not modded up enough to make the grade.
Communism calls for the workers to revolt, so I suppose communism could stand a chance at succeeding, if it drew enough workers into the revolt to actually overthrow the owners of capital. But the chance of that seem slim as long as people would rather watch Survivor: Vanuatu.
But what does Libertarianism call for? Vote them out? They won't go peacefully - they own all the big weapons. Marx figured that out a century ago. Libertarianism is doomed to fail as soon as it succeeds. But maybe they'd set the stage for the Communist revolt to take over. (snicker)
Kevin Smith is no George Lucas.
WhisperGen made the Stirling engine generators used by the author. They offer two models, AC and DC.
It is said that a stateless Communist society, the pinnacle of Marxist philosophy, cannot arise in reality because it would require its citizens to become universally enlightened to Marxist thought and social consciousness before the system would ever become anything but anarchistic chaos, or authoritarian despotism.
Isn't that also a fair appraisal of what a Libertarian society would require of its citizens? If the citizens of Libertarianland are unable to recognize their own englightened self-interest, won't that make the pure Libertarian society as much a pipe dream as the pure Communist society?
(In "Kzinti", the "K" is silent.)
What about the 's' in Louis? Silent or not?
Good! They're supposed to do that. This is the point of SPF, to give senders a way to identify where mail for their domain legitimately originates. If you see a SPF record that points to the address of a known spam-farm, I am sure you will figure out what to do with it.
I ignore all CR messages. Nobody's email is important enought to jump through those hoops. I'll call you by phone instead if I have something to say. If you get tired of me calling, you can add me to your whitelist yourself.
And you must be so incredibly full of hubris that it would never occur to you that someone might adopt a self-deprecating moniker, in an attempt to inject levity and keep people's panties from getting in such a fucking wad. Obviously, with you, this was a waste of effort.
Ok hippie, you keep telling yourself that. Meanwhile the rest of us who aren't stoned will live here in the real world.
So you think your shit stinks so little that anyone who dares disagree with you must be on drugs. Got it, Right-winger. Make sure your jackboots aren't too tight. Nasty blisters, you know.
Clinton was not on the left, Clinton was a big supporter of entrenched wealth, since he himself was a member of that club. You might call Kucinich on the left - middle-left. The United States has one party, with two right wings. You and I are not a consitutent of either wing.
I can tell you that US Navy subs have had few catastophic disasters, and perhaps none at all for a long time.
That's pretty funny. You know enough to know that you probably don't know everything you think you know, but don't want us to know that.
"I can tell you that...."
See! He's on the inside. He's a former nuclear operator with the Navy (so am I, btw). I can tell you that they don't tell us everything. There was a funny myth circulating at the Naval Nuclear Power School in Orlando when I went thriough the training (it was training, not school), and that is that if you assembled 100 nuke school graduates, together they'd have enough expertise to build a nuclear plan from scratch.
Ha! Not a chance.
"...and perhaps none at all for a long time."
Hedging your bet! tee-hee... You know they didn't tell you everything, yet you can't resist posting on this thread from some imagined position of authority. Heh.
Btw, what year did you graduate from Nuke School? I went in 1983.
The awful truth is that we can build stable, non-bomb-making reactors (pebble bed reactors, for instance) and the loonie left won't even consider it.
In case you hadn't noticed, the left has not been in charge of anything for decades. It's the profiteers in existing energy technologies that are holding up alternatives. And like all the other things they are holding up, the plutocrats blame the left for it. Wise up. The left is powerless. They can't be blamed for shit, because no one on the left is in charge of shit.
MSFT figures that either Apache will kowtow after users get pissed that they cannot send to those behind an MS mail solution or that they will end up having to break down themselves later.
You do not need to run any Apache software to put some TXT records in your zone file. MSFT has no leverage over Apache or Apache users, because complying with the requirements that Sender-ID-enabled mail software will be checking doesn't involve any Apache software. Sender-ID records for your domain are configured in your DNS server, and doing so does not require a license from MS. Even if placing Sender-ID records in your zone file did require a license, that license would have to be between the DNS administrator and Microsoft, not the Apache project and not even the BIND company.
No mail server is ever required to check Sender-ID records, or anything else for that matter, in order to accept mail from MS products or any other MTA. You can accept whatever mail you want, regardless if it's Sender-ID checked, or forged, or the sender domains doesn't resolve, whatever you decide is your policy.
You can put SPF records in your domain's zone file indicating your host's IP address or its subnet, or the fully-qualified reverse name or the subdomain of the reverse domain. Or both.
yourdomain.com. IN TXT "v=spf1 ip4:1.2.3.4/32 ?all"
or
yourdomain.com. IN TXT "v=spf1 ptr:dsl.yourisp.net ?all"
I don't think you understand. I don't have to make my MTA check Sender-ID records if I don't wish to. That's where the encumbered part of Sender-ID lies. That Microsoft products are checking Sender-ID records has no effect whatsoever on my MTA that isn't checking them. I don't have to check Sender-ID to accept an email from anyone. The scenario you tried to use to refute my argument won't happen.
The worst that can happen is that I have to put a certain string in a TXT RR associated with my domain, if I want to be able to send mail to a Microsoft product that checks Sender-ID. Microsoft cannot force me or anyone else to check Sender-ID anymore than they can force me to run a spam filter.
Microsoft has a whole lot more leverage to push their own solution.
No they don't, not in this case. If Sender-ID client code is only deployed among Microsoft products, then communicating with Microsoft products may require an administrator to put some records in their domain zone file. Microsoft cannot yet prevent me from putting the DNS records in my zone that their software is looking for. I wouldn't put it past them to try, but it doesn't seem like they can have any IP claim over a string in a TXT record.
But I don't have to use or deploy any software that uses any Sender-ID patented algorithms. Email for my users will still be delivered as usual, whether my MTA checks Sender-ID records or not.
The worst that can happen is that people will face a choice of whether or not to put Sender-ID records in their DNS, if they wish to communicate with Microsoft products that enforce Sender-ID protocol.
However, these means are the primary ways of detecting terrorist chatter.
ORANGE ALERT! ORANGE ALERT!!
I for one, say let's trust the people that we have put in positions of power (for the most part), and let them decide when to use this power.
There's more terrorist chatter, right there.
Here's the proof:
Ambush, or guerilla, marketing is as undeniably effective as it is damaging, attracting consumers at the expense of competitors, all the while undermining an event's integrity and, most importantly, its ability to attract future sponsors.
So these events are not worthwhile in and of themselves. They are only worthwhile if a sponsor thinks they can make money off of sponsoring it.
I've been saying sports are not worthwhile since I was in high school, and people beat me up for it. Maybe I should have gong into marketing.
The Supreme Court has a vendetta against the 9th, in other words. No wonder they overturn them so often.