Multiple accounts violate the Gmail TOS...
on
Gmail in the News
·
· Score: 4, Informative
I think it's worth pointing out that having more than one Gmail account is currently against the Gmail's terms of service.
From the Gmail Help Center:
Can I have multiple accounts?
While we test Gmail, we're gathering information and feedback from a diverse group of users to polish our product. As stated in the Gmail Program Policies, a Gmail user is allowed to open one Gmail account.
Each invitation link is valid for creating only one account. With 1,000 megabytes of storage per account, we hope you'll have enough room to store all necessary messages and information.
If you would like to read more of our policies, please visit: http://www.google.com/gmail/help/program_policies. html.
Thank you for your helping us improve Gmail.
So, unless you've covered your tracks very well, don't expect to hold onto those accounts. I know of at least one case where a user who made more than one account had all his accounts shut down.
Gmail is currently in beta. Use of that beta is a priviledge, not a right, so abusing it is the quickest way to find yourself locked out.
The historical context in which the law was passed isn't entirely irrelevant but that doesn't change the fact that the law doesn't seek to target one faith or one subset of the community but applies to all faiths and everyone.
Sikhs might be allowed to wear their kirpans to school but are they allowed to wear them everywhere? In an airport, in a federal building, on an airplane? If they're banned from wearing it in just one place, by your definition, aren't their civil rights to practice their religion freely being infringed upon?
Oh, I'll also add that carrying a ceremonial knife on their person is inherently part of the Sikh faith that is required of Sikh men. Do Sikh men get a free pass when it comes to taking knives into US airports and on US airplanes? I don't think so.
But in the US, I would like to think that we would not stand for that. Seems silly to me that a whole country is scared of a fucking book.
Seems silly to most non-Americans that a whole country is scared of a one-second flash of a partially covered breast. But in the rest of the world, we don't have a major cow or start lawsuits over that kind of thing.
I have two close female relatives who are devout Muslims: a cousin who converted to Islam (Muslims prefer the term "reverted", by the way, because they believe that we are all born into that faith), and a sister-in-law who has been Muslim all her life.
Both have studied the Koran in depth, especially the one that chose to convert/revert, and both are in agreement that Islam places no demands with regards to headscarves. And both of them have the full support of their families, their mosques and their communities in this regard.
I may not personally be a Muslim but that doesn't stop me from being knowledgeable about what Muslims think when it comes to this issue.
So call bullshit all you want. The majority of Muslims don't have an issue with the wearing of headscarves, just as the majority of Jews don't have an issue with the wearing of a kippa, etc.
If you find it "unacceptable" and "insincere" that someone who's not a member of a particular community discusses issues relating to that community then I suggest you follow your own advice and permanently stop having an opinion, intelligent or otherwise, about anything that doesn't directly concern you. Good luck on that.
On the specifics of the French government's position, realise that they are doing nothing more than enforcing strict seperation between church and state. This, you might have noticed, is also the policy of the US government and legislative system (in the US, school prayer, etc are contentious issues too), so it's hardly like France's position is a million miles from an "anything goes" policy in the US, is it?
Nobody in France is forcing people to abandon their religion. The position is simply one of "you're in school to learn, so let's focus on that, and let's leave religion and any other potentially divisive issues at the door". And, as I've had to say repeatedly, it applies to all regions, not just one, so it's hardly a race issue, is it? Is not wearing the badges of faith for a few hours a day really that much of a threat to Christianity, Islam, Judaism or any other religion?
What does what faith I choose to believe in have to do with it? Whether I'm a Muslim or not, that doesn't change the fact that the Koran doesn't demand that women cover their heads.
If it's of any relevance to you, I'm not a Muslim. Does that somehow prohibit me from making statements about Islam and quoting from the Koran to prove my point? Are facts now the compartmentalised property of the discrete sections of society that they apply to?
Are you telling me that there are no Americans who've ever found themselves having to explain their actions in court after having acted in self-defence? That nobody has ever had to face a prosecution because the police and DA have felt that they had a case to answer? No? Well then stop trying to use one extreme example to make your argument for you.
You have a right to self-defence in the UK. That that right has limits that can be tested in a court of law doesn't change that, which is true in the UK and also true in the US.
Ok great so now you know my religion better than me, and yes its there, ask someone to show you before you force your spew your scewed misconceptions on others.
Here's an article you should read: http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/egypt/?i d=8288
I'll pull the relevant section out for you here:
The Muslim Brotherhood, some of whose activities are tolerated despite a ban in Egypt, elevated the hijab to the importance of fundamental duties such as fasting during the holy month of Ramadan.
However, some Muslim intellectuals denied it was a duty.
Gammal Banna, brother of the Brotherhood's founder, Hassan al-Banna, and author of several works on the rights of Muslim woman, is categorical. "The headscarf is not an obligation," he said.
"Neither the Koran, nor the Hadith (the sayings of the Prophet Mohammed) require women to wear a headscarf," the writer said.
"The headscarf mentioned in the Al-Ahzab surat (chapter) of the Koran meant a curtain or a door and not a scarf to cover the head," while the "Al-Nur surat asks women to cover their chests."
"Wearing the headscarf or not is part of a debate on morals and not on religious obligations," he said. "An erroneous interpretation of the Koran leads one to believe that women are obliged to cover their head."
(Bold emphasis added by me.)
So, tell me again about my "scewed" (sic) misconceptions?
What difference does that make? There's a sticker on my parents' VCR that says "long play" and another that says "Nicam Stereo" but neither of them has a clue what either of those things mean.
Just because people have bought something that doesn't mean that they have fully understood every aspect of what they've bought. Just as my parents don't appreciate the full functionality of their VCR most CD purchasers don't appreciate the restrictions attached to these copy-protected "CD"s*.
(* Technically these copy-protected discs aren't CDs, because they don't meet the red book standards, hence my use of quotation marks.)
You have no idea as to what the relevant British laws are, do you? The law allows you to use "reasonable force" when protecting yourself. This means that if someone comes at you, with or without a baseball bat, of course you're allowed to stop him. But once you've subdued him, by whatever means that might be, you're not allowed to use him as a punching bag.
Somewhere along the line, you and countless other Americans (and if you're not American, I apologise for making that assumption) seem to have got it into your collective heads that if someone is being attacked in Britain that they aren't allowed to fight back. On the contrary, if their is reasonable expectation that you're going to be attacked, such as someone threatening you in a menacing manner, the law allows you to pre-emptively strike first in self-defence.
Now, tell me, how does that fit in with this image that you've painted of having to capitulate whenever threatened?
Islam doesn't require wearing a headscarf either. As I've pointed out elsewhere, the belief that it's compulsory is a fallacy. This requirement certainly isn't mentioned anywhere in the Koran, which is the be-all and end-all of Muslim law.
self defense is practically illegal there. to me, that's a sky-falling travesty.
No, self-defence is perfectly legal. What's not legal is using inappropriate force to hurt someone who may have been intending to hurt or steal from you. Killing someone in self-defense if your life was at stake would be legal but beating a guy who was trying to rob you of your wallet to within an inch of his life would not. Is that really a travesty to you?
No, Muslim women aren't required by their religion to wear a headscarf: that's a fallacy.
Show me where it says that in the Koran and I'll stand corrected. But it's not in the Koran, so I don't think there's any danger of me having to do that.
France banned all overt religious clothing and items from state schools, and this ban applies to all religions, so a Christian cross is treated no different from a Muslim headscarf or a Jewish skullcap. This is a far cry from you claim that all Muslim citizens are banned from wearing headscarves.
What you suggest is the case would apply to all members of a single religion at all times, when in fact the law applies to everyone, regardless of their particular faith, only while they are on school property in school time. What you said was the case would be racist. What actually is the case is egalitarian. There's a big difference.
Now if you want to talk about racism, let's talk about my favourite sport, American Football, where you have the Washington Redskins a team with an overtly racist name and racist mascot. Would a team called the LA Niggers or the Miami Dagos be acceptable? No? Then why is the Washington Redskins, a name that's offensive and derogatory towards Native Americans, OK? How about the Kansas City Chiefs? And the mascot for the Cleveland Indians?
Your society can't even show a decent level of respect for its indigenous peoples, and it's only a couple of generations ago that non-whites were second-class citizens yet you want to run down Europe as a racist's paradise?
You want to talk about Germany's "insanely restrictive citizenship policy"? You don't think that someone wanting to become an American citizen has to jump through any hoops? Or that there are artificial ceilings put in their place? Why can't someone who's adopted US citizenship be the President? Does where a person was born or what nationality his/her parents had relevant if they are the people's choice for the job?
There are two sides to every story, and the US has just as many faults as many European nations do. Utopia doesn't exist either side of the Atlantic so, please, stop the overt "you guys suck, we rock" jingoism. And if you really do have to run down other nations to feel superior then at least get your facts straight first.
If I remember correctly, that 10 connections limit only applies to the Professional and Home versions of Windows 2000 and Windows XP: the Server versions of Windows 2000 and Windows 2003 have no such limitations.
Even with the workstation versions of those OSes the 10 connections limit can be easily removed/raised simply by changing a registry key.
Presumably all those 1,356 entries are in a unique portion of the website that's hosting them.
If that's the case then using an offline reader to save all those files locally can be easily done with a few simple clicks. Furthermore, it can also be automated, so that the process is repeated at regular intervals without any user intervention.
When your data is on someone else's servers, and you don't have any of that data properly backed up, then you are completely at their mercy when it comes to being able to use it or losing it entirely. This is especially true when the service that they are supplying is being provided for free.
Uh, hate to break it to you but the cryptography "breakthroughs" by Rivest, Shamir and Adleman weren't breakthroughs at all. The people who first discovered how to multiply large primes, etc were the scientists at Bletchley Park during World War Two.
Unfortunately, the British government classified all of their work and, after the war, destroyed virtually every record of what went on at Bletchley. However, it's clear from recent (last twenty years) interviews with some of the cryptographers who worked there that their pioneering work in code breaking covered what we today refer to as RSA encryption and a whole lot more.
So, in RSA's case, there was prior art but that prior art was kept a secret because of national security concerns.
Any CPU currently on the market capable of similar performance to a G5 has similar heating issues. Given the constraints of the best manufacturing available today, that's just a byproduct of running that much silicon at that speed.
Saying that "oh they wouldn't need all that cooling if they had a decent CPU design" is nonsense, because the problem is the same for equivalent Intel (Xeon) and AMD (Opteron) chips and it's not even a problem that has a solution of the sort that you seem to be looking for (less heat generation) at the current time.
The best solution for high-end CPUs right now is cooling, and that's what Apple, Dell, etc do. It's just that, in this case, Apple haven't just gone for a cooling solution and left it at that, they've gone for a cooling solution that generates as little noise as possible. Dell, etc, have workstations equivalent to these new dual-G5 systems but they almost all are a lot noiser than you would imagine.
I've discussed the issue of comparing apples to apples elsewwher in this dicussion, so I suggest that you read that too if you're at all interested in a fair analysis of why what Apple has done has raised the bar again.
By the way, for the record, I don't currently own and never have owned an Apple product. But that doesn't stop me from recognising good engineering and design when I see it.
Sweden looks like they're taking a lesson from Switzerland - the best way to ensure neutrality is by being able to defend yourself against your neighbors.
You're giving Switzerland as an example of a vigilant neutral nation? The same Switzerland that's so committed to defending itself that until recently its military personnel didn't carry guns? The same Switzerland that's so obsessed with being neutral in every aspect that it's not even a member of the UN? (Switzerland, like the Vatican City, has permanent observer status at the UN.)
Even ignoring your poor example, the fact remains that Sweden has no enemies whatsoever. Norway certainly isn't a threat (the countries have been peaceful neighbours for a long time now) and even if it was a heavily-armed navy isn't how to best defend yourself against a country with which you share one of the longest land borders in the world. Ditto for Finland. The Baltic states are all NATO members and new to the EU, so the idea of any of them attacking a fellow EU nation is laughable. Which leaves Russia, which wants to join NATO itself, foster greater ties with the EU and to shed off the last vestiges of its Cold War image of the Great Bear.
So, tell me again how much danger Sweden faces from its neighbours in the 21st century?
Slashdot Mirror
From the Gmail Help Center:So, unless you've covered your tracks very well, don't expect to hold onto those accounts. I know of at least one case where a user who made more than one account had all his accounts shut down.
Gmail is currently in beta. Use of that beta is a priviledge, not a right, so abusing it is the quickest way to find yourself locked out.
The historical context in which the law was passed isn't entirely irrelevant but that doesn't change the fact that the law doesn't seek to target one faith or one subset of the community but applies to all faiths and everyone.
Sikhs might be allowed to wear their kirpans to school but are they allowed to wear them everywhere? In an airport, in a federal building, on an airplane? If they're banned from wearing it in just one place, by your definition, aren't their civil rights to practice their religion freely being infringed upon?
Oh, I'll also add that carrying a ceremonial knife on their person is inherently part of the Sikh faith that is required of Sikh men. Do Sikh men get a free pass when it comes to taking knives into US airports and on US airplanes? I don't think so.
I'm not French so they aren't "my laws".
Regardless of that, I still fail to see how applying a law to everyone, regardless of their faith, creed or colour, can be considered racist.
But in the US, I would like to think that we would not stand for that. Seems silly to me that a whole country is scared of a fucking book.
Seems silly to most non-Americans that a whole country is scared of a one-second flash of a partially covered breast. But in the rest of the world, we don't have a major cow or start lawsuits over that kind of thing.
I have two close female relatives who are devout Muslims: a cousin who converted to Islam (Muslims prefer the term "reverted", by the way, because they believe that we are all born into that faith), and a sister-in-law who has been Muslim all her life.
Both have studied the Koran in depth, especially the one that chose to convert/revert, and both are in agreement that Islam places no demands with regards to headscarves. And both of them have the full support of their families, their mosques and their communities in this regard.
I may not personally be a Muslim but that doesn't stop me from being knowledgeable about what Muslims think when it comes to this issue.
So call bullshit all you want. The majority of Muslims don't have an issue with the wearing of headscarves, just as the majority of Jews don't have an issue with the wearing of a kippa, etc.
If you find it "unacceptable" and "insincere" that someone who's not a member of a particular community discusses issues relating to that community then I suggest you follow your own advice and permanently stop having an opinion, intelligent or otherwise, about anything that doesn't directly concern you. Good luck on that.
On the specifics of the French government's position, realise that they are doing nothing more than enforcing strict seperation between church and state. This, you might have noticed, is also the policy of the US government and legislative system (in the US, school prayer, etc are contentious issues too), so it's hardly like France's position is a million miles from an "anything goes" policy in the US, is it?
Nobody in France is forcing people to abandon their religion. The position is simply one of "you're in school to learn, so let's focus on that, and let's leave religion and any other potentially divisive issues at the door". And, as I've had to say repeatedly, it applies to all regions, not just one, so it's hardly a race issue, is it? Is not wearing the badges of faith for a few hours a day really that much of a threat to Christianity, Islam, Judaism or any other religion?
What does what faith I choose to believe in have to do with it? Whether I'm a Muslim or not, that doesn't change the fact that the Koran doesn't demand that women cover their heads.
If it's of any relevance to you, I'm not a Muslim. Does that somehow prohibit me from making statements about Islam and quoting from the Koran to prove my point? Are facts now the compartmentalised property of the discrete sections of society that they apply to?
Are you telling me that there are no Americans who've ever found themselves having to explain their actions in court after having acted in self-defence? That nobody has ever had to face a prosecution because the police and DA have felt that they had a case to answer? No? Well then stop trying to use one extreme example to make your argument for you.
You have a right to self-defence in the UK. That that right has limits that can be tested in a court of law doesn't change that, which is true in the UK and also true in the US.
Here's an article you should read: http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/egypt/?
I'll pull the relevant section out for you here:
(Bold emphasis added by me.)
So, tell me again about my "scewed" (sic) misconceptions?
What difference does that make? There's a sticker on my parents' VCR that says "long play" and another that says "Nicam Stereo" but neither of them has a clue what either of those things mean.
Just because people have bought something that doesn't mean that they have fully understood every aspect of what they've bought. Just as my parents don't appreciate the full functionality of their VCR most CD purchasers don't appreciate the restrictions attached to these copy-protected "CD"s*.
(* Technically these copy-protected discs aren't CDs, because they don't meet the red book standards, hence my use of quotation marks.)
You have no idea as to what the relevant British laws are, do you? The law allows you to use "reasonable force" when protecting yourself. This means that if someone comes at you, with or without a baseball bat, of course you're allowed to stop him. But once you've subdued him, by whatever means that might be, you're not allowed to use him as a punching bag.
Somewhere along the line, you and countless other Americans (and if you're not American, I apologise for making that assumption) seem to have got it into your collective heads that if someone is being attacked in Britain that they aren't allowed to fight back. On the contrary, if their is reasonable expectation that you're going to be attacked, such as someone threatening you in a menacing manner, the law allows you to pre-emptively strike first in self-defence.
Now, tell me, how does that fit in with this image that you've painted of having to capitulate whenever threatened?
Right. So all you have to do to literally get away with homocide is to say that the other person threatened you?
Well done. You've just legalised premeditated murder. After all, the victim can't argue that you're lying about him starting the whole thing, can he?
Islam doesn't require wearing a headscarf either. As I've pointed out elsewhere, the belief that it's compulsory is a fallacy. This requirement certainly isn't mentioned anywhere in the Koran, which is the be-all and end-all of Muslim law.
self defense is practically illegal there. to me, that's a sky-falling travesty.
No, self-defence is perfectly legal. What's not legal is using inappropriate force to hurt someone who may have been intending to hurt or steal from you. Killing someone in self-defense if your life was at stake would be legal but beating a guy who was trying to rob you of your wallet to within an inch of his life would not. Is that really a travesty to you?
No, Muslim women aren't required by their religion to wear a headscarf: that's a fallacy.
Show me where it says that in the Koran and I'll stand corrected. But it's not in the Koran, so I don't think there's any danger of me having to do that.
Britain has a socialist government right now. I haven't noticed the sky falling just yet.
France banned all overt religious clothing and items from state schools, and this ban applies to all religions, so a Christian cross is treated no different from a Muslim headscarf or a Jewish skullcap. This is a far cry from you claim that all Muslim citizens are banned from wearing headscarves.
What you suggest is the case would apply to all members of a single religion at all times, when in fact the law applies to everyone, regardless of their particular faith, only while they are on school property in school time. What you said was the case would be racist. What actually is the case is egalitarian. There's a big difference.
Now if you want to talk about racism, let's talk about my favourite sport, American Football, where you have the Washington Redskins a team with an overtly racist name and racist mascot. Would a team called the LA Niggers or the Miami Dagos be acceptable? No? Then why is the Washington Redskins, a name that's offensive and derogatory towards Native Americans, OK? How about the Kansas City Chiefs? And the mascot for the Cleveland Indians?
Your society can't even show a decent level of respect for its indigenous peoples, and it's only a couple of generations ago that non-whites were second-class citizens yet you want to run down Europe as a racist's paradise?
You want to talk about Germany's "insanely restrictive citizenship policy"? You don't think that someone wanting to become an American citizen has to jump through any hoops? Or that there are artificial ceilings put in their place? Why can't someone who's adopted US citizenship be the President? Does where a person was born or what nationality his/her parents had relevant if they are the people's choice for the job?
There are two sides to every story, and the US has just as many faults as many European nations do. Utopia doesn't exist either side of the Atlantic so, please, stop the overt "you guys suck, we rock" jingoism. And if you really do have to run down other nations to feel superior then at least get your facts straight first.
If I remember correctly, that 10 connections limit only applies to the Professional and Home versions of Windows 2000 and Windows XP: the Server versions of Windows 2000 and Windows 2003 have no such limitations.
Even with the workstation versions of those OSes the 10 connections limit can be easily removed/raised simply by changing a registry key.
Ditto for Yahoo last night at around 11.00pm - 1.00am BST.
Presumably all those 1,356 entries are in a unique portion of the website that's hosting them.
If that's the case then using an offline reader to save all those files locally can be easily done with a few simple clicks. Furthermore, it can also be automated, so that the process is repeated at regular intervals without any user intervention.
So, how easy is that?
When your data is on someone else's servers, and you don't have any of that data properly backed up, then you are completely at their mercy when it comes to being able to use it or losing it entirely. This is especially true when the service that they are supplying is being provided for free.
Uh, hate to break it to you but the cryptography "breakthroughs" by Rivest, Shamir and Adleman weren't breakthroughs at all. The people who first discovered how to multiply large primes, etc were the scientists at Bletchley Park during World War Two.
Unfortunately, the British government classified all of their work and, after the war, destroyed virtually every record of what went on at Bletchley. However, it's clear from recent (last twenty years) interviews with some of the cryptographers who worked there that their pioneering work in code breaking covered what we today refer to as RSA encryption and a whole lot more.
So, in RSA's case, there was prior art but that prior art was kept a secret because of national security concerns.
Well, when something's a POS that's what you do...
(And I'm not referring to POTS.)
Any CPU currently on the market capable of similar performance to a G5 has similar heating issues. Given the constraints of the best manufacturing available today, that's just a byproduct of running that much silicon at that speed.
Saying that "oh they wouldn't need all that cooling if they had a decent CPU design" is nonsense, because the problem is the same for equivalent Intel (Xeon) and AMD (Opteron) chips and it's not even a problem that has a solution of the sort that you seem to be looking for (less heat generation) at the current time.
The best solution for high-end CPUs right now is cooling, and that's what Apple, Dell, etc do. It's just that, in this case, Apple haven't just gone for a cooling solution and left it at that, they've gone for a cooling solution that generates as little noise as possible. Dell, etc, have workstations equivalent to these new dual-G5 systems but they almost all are a lot noiser than you would imagine.
I've discussed the issue of comparing apples to apples elsewwher in this dicussion, so I suggest that you read that too if you're at all interested in a fair analysis of why what Apple has done has raised the bar again.
By the way, for the record, I don't currently own and never have owned an Apple product. But that doesn't stop me from recognising good engineering and design when I see it.
Sweden looks like they're taking a lesson from Switzerland - the best way to ensure neutrality is by being able to defend yourself against your neighbors.
You're giving Switzerland as an example of a vigilant neutral nation? The same Switzerland that's so committed to defending itself that until recently its military personnel didn't carry guns? The same Switzerland that's so obsessed with being neutral in every aspect that it's not even a member of the UN? (Switzerland, like the Vatican City, has permanent observer status at the UN.)
Even ignoring your poor example, the fact remains that Sweden has no enemies whatsoever. Norway certainly isn't a threat (the countries have been peaceful neighbours for a long time now) and even if it was a heavily-armed navy isn't how to best defend yourself against a country with which you share one of the longest land borders in the world. Ditto for Finland. The Baltic states are all NATO members and new to the EU, so the idea of any of them attacking a fellow EU nation is laughable. Which leaves Russia, which wants to join NATO itself, foster greater ties with the EU and to shed off the last vestiges of its Cold War image of the Great Bear.
So, tell me again how much danger Sweden faces from its neighbours in the 21st century?