Re: WiFi Launcher?
Damian Gerow wrote: In theory, all you're doing is: - Finding an AP - Associating with the AP - this could mean just setting your SSID, it could mean cracking WEP keys, it could mean providing authentication... - Grabbing an address (DHCP) At this point, you're looking at around five seconds of work. Which, at the aforementioned 18kph, gives you another 15 seconds to send off any mail. If you run a local DNS server (faster), you'll save yourself a few seconds. The actual MTA transmission only takes a few seconds; that is, unless you're spamming, in which case it may take longer. Why run a DNS server? Cache expiry would still require some lookups. Just pre-populate your hosts file before your transmission sortie. I need to look into whether mixminion tolerates casual connections. ISTR incoming connections are checked against the local key cache, but I'm not sure if that includes the known address of the node. -- Roy M. Silvernail is [EMAIL PROTECTED], and you're not It's just this little chromium switch, here. - TFT SpamAssassin-procmail-/dev/null-bliss http://www.rant-central.com
Hepsiburada.com, Emailiniz ile ilgili !
Title: Hepsiburada.com, Emailiniz ile ilgili ! Sayn yemiz, Sizlere daha kaliteli destek hizmeti verebilmek iin tm sorularnz Bize Yazn servisimize gndermenizi rica ediyoruz. Email ile gndermi olduunuz istekler cevaplandrlamayacaktr. Bize gndermek istediiniz sorularnz iin ltfen Bize Yazn servisimizi kullannz. Bu servise ulamak iin aadaki adrese tklayabilirsiniz. http://www.hepsiburada.com/musteri.aspx?sid=1 hepsiburada.com
AP For Starvation Judge
This just in from CNN: [FBI agents have arrested a North Carolina man on suspicion of soliciting offers over the Internet to kill Michael Schiavo and Judge Greer. Richard Alan Meywes of Fairview is accused of offering $250,000 for the killing of Schiavo and another $50,000 for the the elimination of the judge who ruled against Terri.] Given that the real problem in this case is one stubborn judge, and all the other judges sticking with him, I'm not really sure the bounty allocation cited is the best possible one. Michael Schiavo doesn't, by himself, have the power to completely thwart the wishes of the President of the United States, the Governor of the State of Florida, and an overwhelming majority of both houses of Congress. He is an insignificant pipsqueak, and were he not being backed by the judiciary, the more equal of the three equal branches of government, he would have been marginalized and ignored years ago. I wonder how much it is going to cost the taxpayers for the round the clock army this judge is going to need to protect his sorry life for the remainder of it. -- Eric Michael Cordian 0+ O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law
Re: AP For Starvation Judge
On 2005-03-26T11:04:46-0800, Eric Cordian wrote: This just in from CNN: [FBI agents have arrested a North Carolina man on suspicion of soliciting offers over the Internet to kill Michael Schiavo and Judge Greer. Richard Alan Meywes of Fairview is accused of offering $250,000 for the killing of Schiavo and another $50,000 for the the elimination of the judge who ruled against Terri.] I wonder how much it is going to cost the taxpayers for the round the clock army this judge is going to need to protect his sorry life for the remainder of it. If the judge's decision had been the opposite, there might be a bounty on his head for that, too. If you're saying that fundie Christians are more pathologically violent than either the areligous or the more progressive religious, I'd agree there. -- Unable to correct the source of the indignity to the Negro, [the Phoenix, AZ public accomodations law prohibiting racial discrimination] redresses the situation by placing a separate indignity on the proprietor. ... The unwanted customer and the disliked proprietor are left glowering at one another across the lunch counter. --William H. Rehnquist, 1964-06-15
Re: AP For Starvation Judge
Justin writes: If the judge's decision had been the opposite, there might be a bounty on his head for that, too. Somehow letting someone who has lived 15 years with a significant brain injury live out the rest of their normal life span just doesn't provoke people the same way dehydrating and starving them does. If you're saying that fundie Christians are more pathologically violent than either the areligous or the more progressive religious, I'd agree there. I don't believe in the existence of a supernatural, but I certainly wouldn't take water and food away from any human with a functioning brain stem, particularly when there are people to whom that person's life has meaning, and who are willing to provide them with care. The interesting political lesson here is that one stubborn judge, and his pals who band together to support him, can defy the will of the President of the United States, the Governor of the State of Florida, and a majority of both houses of Congress. Of the three equal branches of government, the unelected branch is more equal than the other two. Of course, we've known that since Marbury vs Madison. -- Eric Michael Cordian 0+ O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law
Re: AP For Starvation Judge
On 2005-03-26T20:05:14-0800, Eric Cordian wrote: Justin writes: If the judge's decision had been the opposite, there might be a bounty on his head for that, too. Somehow letting someone who has lived 15 years with a significant brain injury live out the rest of their normal life span just doesn't provoke people the same way dehydrating and starving them does. She is a corpse with a heartbeat. Artificially feeding her against her wishes and/or the wishes of her husband (whose wishes have precedence over the wishes of her parents -- if you don't like that, get that law changed) is sick. She has become a doll for her parents, who are too immature to grasp the concepts of life, death, and dignity. Presumably they're still stuck on God and selfishness. If you're saying that fundie Christians are more pathologically violent than either the areligous or the more progressive religious, I'd agree there. I don't believe in the existence of a supernatural, but I certainly wouldn't take water and food away from any human with a functioning brain stem, particularly when there are people to whom that person's life has meaning, and who are willing to provide them with care. If I have a living will (in writing or by the decision of a legal proxy) that restricts certain kinds of treatment, you're more than happy to see doctors violate that and keep me alive as long as someone on Earth is willing to pay? (Even if Terry's parents weren't willing or able to pay originally -- I don't know, and haven't investigated that aspect of the case -- if they manage to keep her alive, they'll probably get enough donations to keep her alive for millenia.) That is not the way any sane legal or medical system should work. I suppose you don't believe in euthanasia either? It would seem to be inconsistent if you did. How can someone choose to die if anyone else can veto that choice? The interesting political lesson here is that one stubborn judge, and his pals who band together to support him, can defy the will of the President of the United States, the Governor of the State of Florida, and a majority of both houses of Congress. Thankfully, Neither Jeb nor George nor the U.S. Congress have any jurisdiction over this whatsoever. The courts do. Of the three equal branches of government, the unelected branch is more equal than the other two. Of course, we've known that since Marbury vs Madison. That is of course true, but not because of the decisions so far in this case. The law allows her spouse to decide what artificial means should be used to keep her alive. If you don't like it, again, lobby for a change to the law. The strong control the weak. The majority controls the minority. All we have here is a governmental system originally set up by the majority (maybe... at least no internal faction opposed it until 1860), where some people managed to get into positions of influence within the governmental machine despite having unpopular beliefs. I find it amusing that the Republican-dominated national Congress wants Terry kept alive, while Scalia has been quoted as saying, Mere factual innocent is no reason not to carry out a death sentence properly reached. Republicans in general can't get anything right because their belief system is less coherent than any other. At least the supreme court didn't reverse the decision... not yet, at least. That's only because some of the Republicans are not-so-conservative and they all know the decision would be affirmed. Taking the case would just waste time. -- Unable to correct the source of the indignity to the Negro, [the Phoenix, AZ public accomodations law prohibiting racial discrimination] redresses the situation by placing a separate indignity on the proprietor. ... The unwanted customer and the disliked proprietor are left glowering at one another across the lunch counter. --William H. Rehnquist, 1964-06-15
Re: AP For Starvation Judge
Justin writes: She is a corpse with a heartbeat. According to a cast of characters which include a euthanasia proponent, a lawyer at the forefront of dehydration advocacy for the brain-damaged, and a doctor who thinks its morally acceptable to starve Alzheimer's patients to death. Artificially feeding her against her wishes and/or the wishes of her husband (whose wishes have precedence over the wishes of her parents -- if you don't like that, get that law changed) is sick. I think we have to divide things we do for disabled people into care and heroic medical measures. I consider a feeding tube to fall into the former category. That which we may do to ourselves, if we are functioning, exceeds that which we may require others to do to us if we are not. I can deny myself food, water, and air, for instance. I cannot instruct others to deny me those things if I am rendered incapable of making my own decisions. I can instruct them to deny me things like a respirator, or dialysis, of course, which is reasonable. There is no reason for the feeding tube to be removed at all. It is not valuable. It is not horribly invasive or uncomfortable. It is not going to be taken out and used on another patient. They can certainly starve and dehydrate her to death with the tube in place. In fact, leaving it in place would be a prudent thing to do, to spare her the risk of having to have a new one installed if the decision to kill her is reversed before she dies. THe only reason the tube is being removed, is because they are playing the game that The Tube is keeping her alive. In reality, nutrition and hydration are keeping her alive, and in fact, they are also keeping you and me alive too. Nutrition and hydration are care, not heroic medical measures, and while people can refuse to eat and drink themselves, they should not be able to leave advance directives demanding others deny them such things. If Terri were able to be spoon fed by an attendant, would the judge have then ordered spoon and attendant withdrawal? Would the papers report that the spoon is keeping her alive artificially? If you want to make an argument for killing the cognitively impaired, let's at least call it what it is, and not engage in political theatre over feeding tubes. If I have a living will (in writing or by the decision of a legal proxy) that restricts certain kinds of treatment, you're more than happy to see doctors violate that and keep me alive as long as someone on Earth is willing to pay? Well, I would argue that you do not have a legal right to demand others restrict your air, food, and water, unless they need to be delivered in invasive uncomfortable ways that reduce your human dignity. You are of course welcome to not breathe, drink, or eat as long as you are in charge, but you do not have the right to demand we kill you by withholding such things if you become disabled. That is not the way any sane legal or medical system should work. I suppose you don't believe in euthanasia either? I think euthanasia is fine if the patient is suffering horribly, has all their marbles, and has less than six months to linger from a terminal illness. Terri Schiavo meets none of these criteria. I certainly don't support the right of an adulterous spouse who swore up and down at the malpractice trial that he only wanted to care for his wife for the rest of her natural life, and who didn't mention her wish to not go on until 7 years after her brain injury, to have his brain-damaged wife starved and dehydrated to death solely on his say-so, absent any written indication of her wishes. -- Eric Michael Cordian 0+ O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law
