If any of my customers complained, or you hit any of my personal addresses, you'd likely by placed on my block lists. Can-spam compliance means next to nothing for my policy because of how it's been abused or used as an excuse by those who claim to technically be in compliance with it.

The only thing that would likely save you from wrath on my server was if the message contained a reasonable explanation of where you acquired the email address you were sending to and why you believed that the message was well targeted and would be welcomed.

Or... we could be reading about it because someone wanted to give us inspiration that we _can_ do this (report and comment on city council meetings) and not be silenced by the council members.

Then it will be a velocity slower than terminal (falling) velocity.

Ditto all the stuff about not using your ISPs email server.

Personally, I'd experienced a declining state of affairs in email hosting at a price that I thought was reasonable. I eventually got to the point where I hacked together my own (receiving only) email server in Python. (Also using pieces from Django to connect to an SQL backend.) My outgoing email is sent via a cheap hosting package I have that also doubles as a backup if I have a major incoming server problem... I can just point my MX records back to them.

https://github.com/marvinglenn/asnn-mda (Open Source licensed, free as in both speech and beer)

I'm getting a few false positives in blocking, but that's more due to incompetent configurations by legitimate companies. For example, US Cellulars SPF records don't clear their own sending servers. A few other business, my bank in particular, use a registrar that I find to be such a spam source that I reject email merely by being registered there.

This software is not for anyone that doesn't have at least a modicum of hacker spirit, but I've gotten it to the point where it's been extremely effective for me, hopefully not too hard to set up for others, and gives me the cathartic release of dropping F-bombs on spammers during the SMTP transaction.

Whomever you choose, I recommend against choosing eNom. I had a spam problem so bad on my personal email that I went to the ends of writing my own incoming server to handle the issue. I've found that blocking email from domains registered at eNom to be extremely effective in curbing my spam problem with only a very small number of domains that I needed to whitelist. Looking though my reject logs, eNom seems to be making a mint with spammers that register domains, spam immediately with them, and then abandom them.

Only if 100 is the median, not just the average.

Which is effectively taxation via inflation. We (USA) have particularly been doing this in recent times, with "Q.E." and the treasury buying their own bonds.

But this drives people to leave the American $ for holding on to the assets they've aquired. I'm seeing the purchasing of savings bonds being less in vogue than what I remember seeing from the generations before me. Real estate shoots up in price as a good way to store the value of your assets; which leads to people buying on speculation and other distortions in price less related to its actual value. Large foreign players are less likely to invest here, at least in methods that tie up their capitol in direct $ related assets, like China's purchasing of US Debt (which helped us get into this mess in the first place). All the talk of no longer trading oil on the global market in dollars. And the most recent development I've seen which I take as a significant crack in the dam, the move towards crypto currencies like Bitcoin.

(Slashdot's Keynesian group think shows through strong in the moderation here.)

I challenge your assersion of that claim.

Additionally I submit that government spending causes the players in the economy to act in a way that benefits them the most in receiving that government spending while supressing their drive to be purely efficient and productive. In the end, we end up with a bunch of players chasing the freebies from the government just because they're free rather than being productive and sustainable.

But you probably won't believe this until this spending kills the host, as the GGP post called it.

Along with all the other fine comments taking a shot at the linked article "Cord Cutting Fantasies", I too have something small to add...

The tone I read in the argument contends that the content providers are necessarily entitled to have the revenues they do. I dispute that presumtion. I think the revenues of some of the content providers is higher than it rightfully should be because of collusion and other illegitimate market powers certain providers have.

I cancelled my cable TV some months ago when the "introductory rate" ran out. (I was no longer a new customer but rather just a loyal on, so apparently I didn't deserve to receive any special consideration anymore.) The expiration of the discounts put my bill at a level that I was not willing to pay.

Open letter to Charter Communications: When you can offer me a la carte on the channels I want, then you may call to solicit me about adding services. Until then, I'll pay my internet bill and stop f-ing calling, because I often work swing shift.

The modifier reverse implies that it's discrimination that's purported to be done for the purpose of correcting discrimination. It does not give any more advantage to one group, at least anymore than the original discrimination.

No, the only real free speech is anonymous speech. (Ask Donald Sterling how that "private" speech worked out for him.)

21:9... this is not a 7:3 aspect ratio? Well, I'm holding out for the 42:18's.

And Windoze 95 is an ancestory of yours.

So where's the IAU when I keep hearing this radio commercial for the bullshit "Internaltional Star Registry" from Rocky Mozell? Or did they already smack that one down, and all the suckers who keep giving him money to run commercials didn't get the memo?

Especially for digital books, but to be used on the digital information that a regular book is printed from... a cryptographic hash of the book is the book identifier. Decentralized, unlikely to have a number collision, and the added bonus of a mechanism to make sure that the book you received is the book you wanted. The only thing that needs to be centralized is the decision of which hash to use, how to hash the data, and how to represent the hash as to the user.