Actually, it would be more like you chalenging the constutionality of them chaining the baseball bat to the table because it infringes on your god-given right to swing it around your head, inspite of the fact that the store is in a high-crime area and has 1,200 stolen every week.
Things really *aren't* about individual rights all the time. And this is one such case.
Because you have control over your server-level spam filters, rather than relying on your ISP. You can even "white-list" your incoming mail, if you are so inclined.
First, if you don't have a server (and there's no real point to it if port 25 is blocked, is there?), then you don't have "server-level" spam filters to control.
2nd, since you don't have a mail server to worry about (see above), use "client-side" spam filters instead.
I'm sorry - but I'm having a hard time feeling sorry for you not being able to operate a vanity-domain mail server because you're in a mood to this week at the expence of me having to do additional work on MY mailservers to compensate for the resulting spew from your ISP's other customers.
But Cable TV content is produced at great expense by companies that expect recompense. The internet is composed largely of user contributions. Blocking off ports is just a way of producing an artificial scarcity.
No, actually, it's not, and on a couple of points.
First, there's the old saw that says "Your right to swing your arm ends at the tip of my nose"
That is exactly what the ISP is doing - stopping you from hitting MY nose, just because somebody wants to play with an email server. If you want to play, you can always set it up on an alternative port and play till you're heart's content. But in the meantime, the 3,000 viruses/rootkits/zombie loads that your roommate/wife/son managed to infect your computer with won't be sending me any more offers for breast enlargement cream.
The *other* point is that it's simply a matter of differentiating between product offerings. Your cable TV is capable of delivering 200 stations. But do you bitch at the difference between basic cable, the "movie" pack, the "sports" pack, and the "adult" packs that you have to pay extra for? Of course not - it's an extra service, and to get it, you cough up more coin. That's the way markets work.
So just because port 25 happens to be there, why is it any different if your ISP charges you extra (requiring you to pay business rates, for a business account) for something that NO SINGLE INDIVIDUAL NEEDS, and actually increases the expences for the ISP in question? (monitoring, getitng themselves removed form blacklists becase of some jerk who really *can't* figure out sendmail.cf, and dealing with the increased supports costs from OTHER users, bitching because all their mail gets bounced)?
There is no freedom without responsibility - I'm pretty sure that you guys fought a little war about that a few hundred years ago.
Since individual users ("the great unwashed") can't/won't/aren't capable of being responsible for their own systems - keeping them clean, etc - the ISP has to do it.
So deal with it. Not everything in the world comes down to a bad interpretation of Adam Smith's writings.
Then why the hell are you arguing for it? I recommend you go watch some clips on youtube.com or something. That'll give you a jist.
I'm NOT arguing for it at all. I can't argue for or against it. What I'm saying is that your dislike and mistrust of it, based on the comments you've been making, seem to be based more on the fact that it doesn't jibe with your particular political beliefs.
News is not supposed to lead it's audience. It's supposed to lay out the facts of the day. When they start laying down opinion like it was fact, that's when they loose trust.
And here, you're absolutly right. Unfortunatly, the reality is that increasingly over the last 15 years or so, reporters have considered it their "responsibility" to put the news "in context" - which is just a euphamism for spin.
The problem is that opinions that don't agree with your own (I'm using the royal "you" here) tend to get filtered out, and leave you with a warm fuzzy feeling - you "trust" the content - while opinions you *don't* agree with generally appear to you to be very jarring, and stand out. So people consider them to very blatant, and slanted.
Go ahead - ask somebody who's conservative what he thinks about CNN, and he'll give you almost word for word what you've been saying to me.
Yes, there are facts that can be proven to be right or wrong. But when it comes to political opinion, it's a matter of *belief* - and liberal can't say a conservative is wrong any more than a convservative can say that the liberal is wrong. All that they CAN say is that they don't agree.
And when a liberal gets into calling conservatives stupid war-mongers, or a conservative calls liberals soft-headed idiots who don't use their brains, all they are doing is showing how stupid and idiotic they are themselves.
Certainly, the Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) watchdog group seems to spend an awful lot of time lambasting FOX News for its coverage. At the moment, FAIR's top story on their website is an article on inaccurate reporting by FOX's own Bill O'Reilly during the May 1 immigrant demonstrations. Considering the controversy over FOX News, I find it strange that more Americans trust FOX News than any other news source.
And here is a good reason why it's important to know your sources - regardless of your political leanings
I just took a quick look at that site - every story on the front page was a left-wing right, right-wing wrong kind of story
I have no idea which side is (more) correct or (more) wrong when it comes to rush limbaugh or fox, not having the opportunity to see either...... but for me, this comes down to a he said/she said kind of thing
Naming your organisation such that it can be abbreviated to FAIR doesn't MAKE it fair, any more than FOX's "fair and balanced" claim makes *it* fair.
The best way to learn that skill would be learning the "scientific method." Usually a magazine like the "Skeptic Enquirer" is the most newb friendly, and explain things quickly to the layman, giving examples. and reinforcing that learning.
I don't think the skill you're after if the scientific method - it's critical thinking
Critical thinking involves looking at something and checking it for internal consistancy, and then measuring it against things that you *do* know, to see if it "makes sence".
If it makes sence, then it stands a better chance to being correct.
An example would be the messages that get passed around via emails, IM chats, etc... "Be on the lookout for somebody named XXX trying to send you files!!!!!! Dora Peterson, a police officer with the Bumfuck, Iowa, municipal police department, says that he raped TWENTY-EIGHT women in a 48 hour period last week and is headed your way - she asked me to pass this around to everybody I know because he's so dangerous!!!!!!!"
Now seriously - does anybody here know of a police department that operates that way? (Critical Thinking)
If something that horrific DID happen, don't you think you would have heard about it on Fox AND CBS? (Critical Thinking)
I asked my daughter's pricipal last year when/if they were going to be doing anything to introduce them to critical thinking, and to help them develop those skills - we were facing a federal election here, and I thought they might come in handy. His responce?
"I think they did something like that back in Grade 5 - but we don't teach that in high school"
You may not realize it, but you are reinforcing certain stereotypes regarding blind loyalty and subservience among conservatives.
I'm assuming that your post and it's parent were posted early on int the discussion.... but given what I've read in the 200 or so posts it took me to get to this point, I'd say that the only thing he's done is prove to be amazingly prescient:-)
No, I didn't blame them. They help make it possible. Any news outlet which simply parrots what government or corporate sponsors want said are not what the 1st amendment is there to protect.
Ok, so I'm just a dumb Canuck.... see if you can help me out here.
Bush got elected. Twice, if memory serves. Doesn't that imply that *somebody* in the USA agrees with him and his policies? And that maybe Fox's editorial positons also happen to agree and be in line with that relativly large segment of the population?
Sadly, the Whitehouse (and particularly the president since a leader is responsible for those who work at his/her behest) may pick and choose who attends press briefings. The president's handlers have also made it a point in the past few years to keep protesters at bay, in a specially designated "not friends of the president" lot down the street during rallies.
ummmm..... newsbulliten for you. *Those* particular tactics has been used ever since political rallies were invented. And it predates even the *existance* of the USA.
Why the love-fest between Fox and Bush, I do not know, but perhaps it's explored in the film Outfoxed I missed it when it was in town and should probably go rent it.
ALong the same vein.... why the hate-fest between CBS and Bush - or CNN and Bush - or whoever and whoever else
And it's also very interesting that you give a link to a film with a very slanted, very obvious political bias as proof that Fox, which has a political bias in the OTHER direction, is evil/wrong/incompotent/lapdog to the president.
In closing, I would like to point out that I've never *seen* Fox News - I'm Canadian, and we don't get it up here. The point I've been trying to make is that you can't trust a news service or any information source just because it doesn't agree with your and your worldview.
The thinh you SHOULD be complaining about, as far as I'm concerned, is the fact that "reporters" are allowed to give political opinions of ANY stripe, instead of just reporting the facts and letting people make up their own mind. And it's that (relative) lack of political commentary that DOES make the BBC the benchmark for most people.
Thanks Fox News, you've helped make that possible by bluring corporate interference in the news room, info-tainment and politics.
Two words: "Dan Rather"
Let's remember, folks, it was 60 minites & CBS that decided to turn news into a profit instead of cost center
Let's also please try to remember that just because a report on a network doesn't happen to agree with your particular take on a subject, doesn't mean that it's wrong. Sometimes, you know, there really *are* different ways to look at things.
Case in point: Years and years ago, when I was young, foolish and in the military, I was stationed in the Canadian far north.
One of the things we used to do when we were bored was tune all the teletype machines to the different wireservices. Tass international, Tass domestic, BBS, Reuters/AP, French services, etc.
We'd arbitrarily pick a story that all the services reported on, and compare them.
THe differences were so broad that it was sometimes hard to tell that you WERE looking at the same story. But it really wasn't often that they were deliberate distortions. The specific facts that were reported, the order they were presented in, etc, could make a MAJOR difference in how the story read.
Obviously, the editors at Tass has a slightly different worldview than the people at the NY Times - and that was reflected.
THe moral of the story, is that *everybody* has their blind spots, and their own way of looking at the world. Before you see a story on CNN, Fox, or anything else, you have the reporter giving his speil... then his bureau chief doing some preliminary checking/editing. They send it to the main headquarters, where some grunt does a preliminary cut - pass it to an editor, who "fine-tunes" a few things.... and depending on the organisation, the anchor may finally change something - maybe for no other reason than it will give him a nice seguay into the NEXT story.
ALL information is filtered. And if you know the filters and their particular biases, you have a chance of getting something relativly neutral that you can make your OWN mind up on.
And for the record - if I had to pick just one news source in the world to have to rely on for the rest of my life, it would be the BBC.
having your own mail server is one of the best ways to prevent spam from reaching you.
How does that prevent spam from reaching you? If mail can get to you, SPAM mail can get to you. It has much more to do with the availability of your email address than anything.
Hear hear, the same goes for people that want to sell you "Internet Service" which doesn't allow you to run servers or use port 25
That is just bull on soooooo many levels.
Cable TV has a number of packages, all geared to specific type of viewers, at different prices.
The sports nuts can watch every baseball, hocky, & basketball game played.... but he'll pay.
I pay less, because I'm less of a "nut".
Want to run a mail server? Get a commercial account - don't expect to be able to do everything IBM can do for $9.95/month.
And if you think that blocking port 25 makes you not an ISP, then you've never had to administer a mail server *before* the ISP's started blocking port 25, and the wannabe spammers and botnets that generated the majority of that crap.
The problem isn't that Microsoft(tm) car stereo. The problem is that they've bought out/buried/destroyed GM & Ford, and now have over 90% of the car market.
The problem NOW is that the Microsoft(tm) car will only run if you buy Microsoft(tm) gas from a Microsoft(tm) certified fuel partner.
THe other oil companies are just a wee bit upset by that.
You miss my point. If they *agreed* in the contract that 15% was reasonable, as you said, they're screwed. The point I was making was that if the contract instead of stating "15% for breakage" says something like "breakage allowance", or "breakage charges" or something similar, THEN it becomes an accounting problem, and open for interpretation.
If the percentage is not explicitly stated, they have a chance.
What *I'm* saying, is that I bet it's an accounting problem, not a contractual one.
If the contract says 15% for breakage, then they're hosed. Period.
But if the contract says they can deduct for breakage, then they have to *account* for breakage.
In that case, 15% would be reasonable, given historic practice and industry norms.
But mp3 distribution is not an "industry norm" - it's new. And if theyr'e bringing them to court because of their ACCOUNTING practices instead of contractual issues, then I think they'll probably have a good shot - because breakage is obviously not applicable to mp3 distribution.
They give one copy of a song to apple, and apple does the rest. Where the hell is breakage?
.... for whatever expenses the record company incurs.
Bingo - that's the key right there. What packaging, breakage, & distrubitions costs do they have associated with mp3s?
Unless thhey signed contracts that said sony could deduct X% for this and y% for that, they're limited to REASONABLE expences. - which including overhead would be what - maybe.0025 cents/mp3?
read about our history.
How we have been persecuted for years because of the languages differences.
Read about how england tried to destroy the french after the colonial wars were over. See how our people were vanquished on the battlefields yet never conquered,
all in the name of culture.
Then you might get a glimpse of why we are so sensitive about languages.
Of course, a tourist is not expected to know these things, and i think beign rude isn't the way to deal with this.
We are not elitists, we are just outnumbered and we fight daily to keep ourselves from beign flooded. And we fight well enough to have a separatist party at the federal level.
If you visit Québec, just try to mention you're a tourist. It makes all the difference on the reply you'll get if you don't speak french.
Can you say "Xenophobic", boys and girls? I knew you could......
Lord Durham said after the conquest in his report to the Queen that there were two options on how to deal with the French: a) assimilate, or b) let them have their language, culture, and laws. He recommended the latter, which the Queen accepted
Proof: You still have your provincial laws based on the Napoleanic code, you still speak french, and you invented poutine (MUCH better than nouvelle quisiene, if you ask me)
You are "sensitive" about language in the same way that a klansman is "sensitive" to blacks.
Proof: A *higher* percentive of the population of Quebec speaks french today than at any time in her history. And there is also a higher proportion of UNILINGUAL french. While the rest of the country tries to learn french to accomodate you, all they get when they try to speak to you is laughed at for their accent or grammar.
You were not
You lost the war, and it was a very, very long time ago. Deal with it.
You were not persecuted by the English - you were kept uneducated and ignorant by the Catholic Church. Ask Maurice about this - he had a few rather definate opinions on the matter
The provincial motto, as displayed on the liscence plates in quebec, is "Je me souviens" . I was once asked by a 7 year old what it meant. I told him it meant "My memory doesn't work"
#1: I may be a lot of things, but an idiot user is most certainly not one of them
#2: I've never dealt with a company that has an MS infrastructure that has *not* had issues. I guess that means that of the 100s of MS admins I've come across that there's not a compotent one in the lot
That being said, there's also #3, to wit:
I freely admit that there may be a difference between the desktop systems and the server systems. But given the design and track record of what *I've* seen, I sure as hell wouldn't bet my business on it.
If you'd read what I had posted, you'd know that I *wasn't* bashing MS for IIS - I was bashing them for the unreliable O/S that IIS has to run on.
I can't comment on what you and another poster have claimed for their uptimes, because I have no basis to do so.
All I can say is that what you and another poster are claiming goes directly against my experience on both the desktop, and from having contracts with companies that *do* have MS infrastructure.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, it would be more like you chalenging the constutionality of them chaining the baseball bat to the table because it infringes on your god-given right to swing it around your head, inspite of the fact that the store is in a high-crime area and has 1,200 stolen every week.
Things really *aren't* about individual rights all the time. And this is one such case.
Because you have control over your server-level spam filters, rather than relying on your ISP. You can even "white-list" your incoming mail, if you are so inclined.
First, if you don't have a server (and there's no real point to it if port 25 is blocked, is there?), then you don't have "server-level" spam filters to control.
2nd, since you don't have a mail server to worry about (see above), use "client-side" spam filters instead.
I'm sorry - but I'm having a hard time feeling sorry for you not being able to operate a vanity-domain mail server because you're in a mood to this week at the expence of me having to do additional work on MY mailservers to compensate for the resulting spew from your ISP's other customers.
But Cable TV content is produced at great expense by companies that expect recompense. The internet is composed largely of user contributions. Blocking off ports is just a way of producing an artificial scarcity.
No, actually, it's not, and on a couple of points.
First, there's the old saw that says "Your right to swing your arm ends at the tip of my nose"
That is exactly what the ISP is doing - stopping you from hitting MY nose, just because somebody wants to play with an email server. If you want to play, you can always set it up on an alternative port and play till you're heart's content. But in the meantime, the 3,000 viruses/rootkits/zombie loads that your roommate/wife/son managed to infect your computer with won't be sending me any more offers for breast enlargement cream.
The *other* point is that it's simply a matter of differentiating between product offerings. Your cable TV is capable of delivering 200 stations. But do you bitch at the difference between basic cable, the "movie" pack, the "sports" pack, and the "adult" packs that you have to pay extra for? Of course not - it's an extra service, and to get it, you cough up more coin. That's the way markets work.
So just because port 25 happens to be there, why is it any different if your ISP charges you extra (requiring you to pay business rates, for a business account) for something that NO SINGLE INDIVIDUAL NEEDS, and actually increases the expences for the ISP in question? (monitoring, getitng themselves removed form blacklists becase of some jerk who really *can't* figure out sendmail.cf, and dealing with the increased supports costs from OTHER users, bitching because all their mail gets bounced)?
There is no freedom without responsibility - I'm pretty sure that you guys fought a little war about that a few hundred years ago.
Since individual users ("the great unwashed") can't/won't/aren't capable of being responsible for their own systems - keeping them clean, etc - the ISP has to do it.
So deal with it. Not everything in the world comes down to a bad interpretation of Adam Smith's writings.
Then why the hell are you arguing for it? I recommend you go watch some clips on youtube.com or something. That'll give you a jist.
I'm NOT arguing for it at all. I can't argue for or against it. What I'm saying is that your dislike and mistrust of it, based on the comments you've been making, seem to be based more on the fact that it doesn't jibe with your particular political beliefs.
News is not supposed to lead it's audience. It's supposed to lay out the facts of the day. When they start laying down opinion like it was fact, that's when they loose trust.
And here, you're absolutly right. Unfortunatly, the reality is that increasingly over the last 15 years or so, reporters have considered it their "responsibility" to put the news "in context" - which is just a euphamism for spin.
The problem is that opinions that don't agree with your own (I'm using the royal "you" here) tend to get filtered out, and leave you with a warm fuzzy feeling - you "trust" the content - while opinions you *don't* agree with generally appear to you to be very jarring, and stand out. So people consider them to very blatant, and slanted.
Go ahead - ask somebody who's conservative what he thinks about CNN, and he'll give you almost word for word what you've been saying to me.
Yes, there are facts that can be proven to be right or wrong. But when it comes to political opinion, it's a matter of *belief* - and liberal can't say a conservative is wrong any more than a convservative can say that the liberal is wrong. All that they CAN say is that they don't agree.
And when a liberal gets into calling conservatives stupid war-mongers, or a conservative calls liberals soft-headed idiots who don't use their brains, all they are doing is showing how stupid and idiotic they are themselves.
Did she swallow it?
..... who amongst us really gives a shit WHAT happens to it once we've gotten rid of it?
Ok - let's have some fair and balanced reporting HERE, at least
Hands up
Anybody? Hello?
Certainly, the Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) watchdog group seems to spend an awful lot of time lambasting FOX News for its coverage. At the moment, FAIR's top story on their website is an article on inaccurate reporting by FOX's own Bill O'Reilly during the May 1 immigrant demonstrations. Considering the controversy over FOX News, I find it strange that more Americans trust FOX News than any other news source.
...... but for me, this comes down to a he said/she said kind of thing
And here is a good reason why it's important to know your sources - regardless of your political leanings
I just took a quick look at that site - every story on the front page was a left-wing right, right-wing wrong kind of story
I have no idea which side is (more) correct or (more) wrong when it comes to rush limbaugh or fox, not having the opportunity to see either
Naming your organisation such that it can be abbreviated to FAIR doesn't MAKE it fair, any more than FOX's "fair and balanced" claim makes *it* fair.
if I hadn't already posted to this thread (way too many times), I'd be modding your arse up so high you'd get nosebleed :-)
The best way to learn that skill would be learning the "scientific method." Usually a magazine like the "Skeptic Enquirer" is the most newb friendly, and explain things quickly to the layman, giving examples. and reinforcing that learning.
... "Be on the lookout for somebody named XXX trying to send you files!!!!!! Dora Peterson, a police officer with the Bumfuck, Iowa, municipal police department, says that he raped TWENTY-EIGHT women in a 48 hour period last week and is headed your way - she asked me to pass this around to everybody I know because he's so dangerous!!!!!!!"
...... VERY sad .......
I don't think the skill you're after if the scientific method - it's critical thinking
Critical thinking involves looking at something and checking it for internal consistancy, and then measuring it against things that you *do* know, to see if it "makes sence".
If it makes sence, then it stands a better chance to being correct.
An example would be the messages that get passed around via emails, IM chats, etc
Now seriously - does anybody here know of a police department that operates that way? (Critical Thinking)
If something that horrific DID happen, don't you think you would have heard about it on Fox AND CBS? (Critical Thinking)
I asked my daughter's pricipal last year when/if they were going to be doing anything to introduce them to critical thinking, and to help them develop those skills - we were facing a federal election here, and I thought they might come in handy. His responce?
"I think they did something like that back in Grade 5 - but we don't teach that in high school"
Sad
You may not realize it, but you are reinforcing certain stereotypes regarding blind loyalty and subservience among conservatives.
.... but given what I've read in the 200 or so posts it took me to get to this point, I'd say that the only thing he's done is prove to be amazingly prescient :-)
I'm assuming that your post and it's parent were posted early on int the discussion
Dewey reall DID win that election, you know. I read it in the newspaper
Old soviet saying. (Pravda means "truth", Izvestia means "news")
"There is no truth in the news, and no news in the truth
No, I didn't blame them. They help make it possible. Any news outlet which simply parrots what government or corporate sponsors want said are not what the 1st amendment is there to protect.
.... see if you can help me out here.
..... newsbulliten for you. *Those* particular tactics has been used ever since political rallies were invented. And it predates even the *existance* of the USA.
.... why the hate-fest between CBS and Bush - or CNN and Bush - or whoever and whoever else
Ok, so I'm just a dumb Canuck
Bush got elected. Twice, if memory serves. Doesn't that imply that *somebody* in the USA agrees with him and his policies? And that maybe Fox's editorial positons also happen to agree and be in line with that relativly large segment of the population?
Sadly, the Whitehouse (and particularly the president since a leader is responsible for those who work at his/her behest) may pick and choose who attends press briefings. The president's handlers have also made it a point in the past few years to keep protesters at bay, in a specially designated "not friends of the president" lot down the street during rallies.
ummmm
Why the love-fest between Fox and Bush, I do not know, but perhaps it's explored in the film Outfoxed I missed it when it was in town and should probably go rent it.
ALong the same vein
And it's also very interesting that you give a link to a film with a very slanted, very obvious political bias as proof that Fox, which has a political bias in the OTHER direction, is evil/wrong/incompotent/lapdog to the president.
In closing, I would like to point out that I've never *seen* Fox News - I'm Canadian, and we don't get it up here. The point I've been trying to make is that you can't trust a news service or any information source just because it doesn't agree with your and your worldview.
The thinh you SHOULD be complaining about, as far as I'm concerned, is the fact that "reporters" are allowed to give political opinions of ANY stripe, instead of just reporting the facts and letting people make up their own mind. And it's that (relative) lack of political commentary that DOES make the BBC the benchmark for most people.
Thanks Fox News, you've helped make that possible by bluring corporate interference in the news room, info-tainment and politics.
... then his bureau chief doing some preliminary checking/editing. They send it to the main headquarters, where some grunt does a preliminary cut - pass it to an editor, who "fine-tunes" a few things .... and depending on the organisation, the anchor may finally change something - maybe for no other reason than it will give him a nice seguay into the NEXT story.
Two words: "Dan Rather"
Let's remember, folks, it was 60 minites & CBS that decided to turn news into a profit instead of cost center
Let's also please try to remember that just because a report on a network doesn't happen to agree with your particular take on a subject, doesn't mean that it's wrong. Sometimes, you know, there really *are* different ways to look at things.
Case in point: Years and years ago, when I was young, foolish and in the military, I was stationed in the Canadian far north.
One of the things we used to do when we were bored was tune all the teletype machines to the different wireservices. Tass international, Tass domestic, BBS, Reuters/AP, French services, etc.
We'd arbitrarily pick a story that all the services reported on, and compare them.
THe differences were so broad that it was sometimes hard to tell that you WERE looking at the same story. But it really wasn't often that they were deliberate distortions. The specific facts that were reported, the order they were presented in, etc, could make a MAJOR difference in how the story read.
Obviously, the editors at Tass has a slightly different worldview than the people at the NY Times - and that was reflected.
THe moral of the story, is that *everybody* has their blind spots, and their own way of looking at the world. Before you see a story on CNN, Fox, or anything else, you have the reporter giving his speil
ALL information is filtered. And if you know the filters and their particular biases, you have a chance of getting something relativly neutral that you can make your OWN mind up on.
And for the record - if I had to pick just one news source in the world to have to rely on for the rest of my life, it would be the BBC.
Oil companies dontate alot to their party. It's a hands off policy by Republicans.
If you think that the oil companies (or any other "big" lobby group) donates any less to the Democrats, the you really haven't been paying attention
Companies can't distort a free market, only a government can.
:)
Prove me wrong.
Standard Oil
the Hunt Brothers
Or, or a market distorted to absurd levels, how about Tulib Bulbs in Holland?
having your own mail server is one of the best ways to prevent spam from reaching you.
How does that prevent spam from reaching you? If mail can get to you, SPAM mail can get to you. It has much more to do with the availability of your email address than anything.
Hear hear, the same goes for people that want to sell you "Internet Service" which doesn't allow you to run servers or use port 25
.... but he'll pay.
That is just bull on soooooo many levels.
Cable TV has a number of packages, all geared to specific type of viewers, at different prices.
The sports nuts can watch every baseball, hocky, & basketball game played
I pay less, because I'm less of a "nut".
Want to run a mail server? Get a commercial account - don't expect to be able to do everything IBM can do for $9.95/month.
And if you think that blocking port 25 makes you not an ISP, then you've never had to administer a mail server *before* the ISP's started blocking port 25, and the wannabe spammers and botnets that generated the majority of that crap.
The problem isn't that Microsoft(tm) car stereo. The problem is that they've bought out/buried/destroyed GM & Ford, and now have over 90% of the car market.
The problem NOW is that the Microsoft(tm) car will only run if you buy Microsoft(tm) gas from a Microsoft(tm) certified fuel partner.
THe other oil companies are just a wee bit upset by that.
You miss my point. If they *agreed* in the contract that 15% was reasonable, as you said, they're screwed. The point I was making was that if the contract instead of stating "15% for breakage" says something like "breakage allowance", or "breakage charges" or something similar, THEN it becomes an accounting problem, and open for interpretation.
If the percentage is not explicitly stated, they have a chance.
What *I'm* saying, is that I bet it's an accounting problem, not a contractual one.
If the contract says 15% for breakage, then they're hosed. Period.
But if the contract says they can deduct for breakage, then they have to *account* for breakage.
In that case, 15% would be reasonable, given historic practice and industry norms.
But mp3 distribution is not an "industry norm" - it's new. And if theyr'e bringing them to court because of their ACCOUNTING practices instead of contractual issues, then I think they'll probably have a good shot - because breakage is obviously not applicable to mp3 distribution.
They give one copy of a song to apple, and apple does the rest. Where the hell is breakage?
I suspect it's an accounting issue
.... for whatever expenses the record company incurs.
.0025 cents/mp3?
Bingo - that's the key right there. What packaging, breakage, & distrubitions costs do they have associated with mp3s?
Unless thhey signed contracts that said sony could deduct X% for this and y% for that, they're limited to REASONABLE expences. - which including overhead would be what - maybe
I was playing on semantics. To me, conquered would mean we would be taught english laguage and history in schools, etc.
I had to learn French in school - does that mean that yo conquered US?
Does the french language even have a WORD for history? Becuase every Quebecer I've ever come across seems to have a very poor concept of it
read about our history. How we have been persecuted for years because of the languages differences. Read about how england tried to destroy the french after the colonial wars were over. See how our people were vanquished on the battlefields yet never conquered, all in the name of culture.
......
Then you might get a glimpse of why we are so sensitive about languages. Of course, a tourist is not expected to know these things, and i think beign rude isn't the way to deal with this.
We are not elitists, we are just outnumbered and we fight daily to keep ourselves from beign flooded. And we fight well enough to have a separatist party at the federal level.
If you visit Québec, just try to mention you're a tourist. It makes all the difference on the reply you'll get if you don't speak french.
Can you say "Xenophobic", boys and girls? I knew you could
Lord Durham said after the conquest in his report to the Queen that there were two options on how to deal with the French: a) assimilate, or b) let them have their language, culture, and laws. He recommended the latter, which the Queen accepted
Proof: You still have your provincial laws based on the Napoleanic code, you still speak french, and you invented poutine (MUCH better than nouvelle quisiene, if you ask me)
You are "sensitive" about language in the same way that a klansman is "sensitive" to blacks.
Proof: A *higher* percentive of the population of Quebec speaks french today than at any time in her history. And there is also a higher proportion of UNILINGUAL french. While the rest of the country tries to learn french to accomodate you, all they get when they try to speak to you is laughed at for their accent or grammar.
You were not You lost the war, and it was a very, very long time ago. Deal with it.
You were not persecuted by the English - you were kept uneducated and ignorant by the Catholic Church. Ask Maurice about this - he had a few rather definate opinions on the matter
The provincial motto, as displayed on the liscence plates in quebec, is "Je me souviens" . I was once asked by a 7 year old what it meant. I told him it meant "My memory doesn't work"
#1: I may be a lot of things, but an idiot user is most certainly not one of them
#2: I've never dealt with a company that has an MS infrastructure that has *not* had issues. I guess that means that of the 100s of MS admins I've come across that there's not a compotent one in the lot
That being said, there's also #3, to wit:
I freely admit that there may be a difference between the desktop systems and the server systems. But given the design and track record of what *I've* seen, I sure as hell wouldn't bet my business on it.
If you'd read what I had posted, you'd know that I *wasn't* bashing MS for IIS - I was bashing them for the unreliable O/S that IIS has to run on.
I can't comment on what you and another poster have claimed for their uptimes, because I have no basis to do so.
All I can say is that what you and another poster are claiming goes directly against my experience on both the desktop, and from having contracts with companies that *do* have MS infrastructure.