I don't know about safer, but NZ beef is quite different from US beef as cows in NZ are mainly grass feed (whereas cows in the US are mainly grass feed).
This results in a different textured and tasting beef. don't think this makes it safer.
NZ has never had cows with Mad Cows to date, that can could make it consider safer though.
I agree with the above poster. I've heard this judge speak at a couple of conferences on IT related law. Judge Harvey would know more about the Internet and the implications of this judgment that most people on Slashdot.
I'm curious to hear his exact reasoning for doing this when the judgment is released.
Not a lawer, but the bit of law he was fined under only applies if promoting goods or services:
Fair Trading Act 1986 Part 1 S13 SS(g):
No person shall, in trade, in connection with the supply or possible supply of goods or services or with the promotion by any means of the supply or use of goods or services,--
g) Make a false or misleading representation with respect to the price of any goods or services; or
I've never heard of a company being forced to stand by the erroneous price in New Zealand. The is targeted at a business trying to mislead the public, not for a mistake. It is not uncommon for a large store to have a sign at the door pointing errors in there advertised prices, specs etc if they made a mistake.
NZ has a law the Fair Trading Act 1986. Part of it is around consumer protection.
Basically the part he has been fined under is a section that states business must advertise prices, product spec etc correctly. It doesn't matter if it was in print or online it's advertising.
He was warned about it and did nothing, so he was fined. It's not about Big brother jumping in. He broke a law (that pre-dates common usage of the Internet) and he got caught.
A number of companies a year get fined for this sort of action, the only reason this got much of a headline is that it was the 1st web-based advertising to be fined under the Act.
Data over power networks has been around for a while...
There's ever some cheap end-user products
http://www.dse.co.nz/cgi-bin/dse.storefront/3f0cab 35072086e4273fc0a87f9906e0/Product/View/XH6774
The government?
Which government?
I hate to point it out but a number of countries other than the US use the internet.
Spammers would just move there business to the most 'spam friendly' country.
At a guess I'd say the failures are not with the SMSCs so much but more the interconnects between carriers.
I know of a few interesting issues with interconnects between CDMA and GSM based networks due to character set differents which have caused messages to be lost.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know about safer, but NZ beef is quite different from US beef as cows in NZ are mainly grass feed (whereas cows in the US are mainly grass feed). This results in a different textured and tasting beef. don't think this makes it safer. NZ has never had cows with Mad Cows to date, that can could make it consider safer though.
I agree with the above poster. I've heard this judge speak at a couple of conferences on IT related law. Judge Harvey would know more about the Internet and the implications of this judgment that most people on Slashdot. I'm curious to hear his exact reasoning for doing this when the judgment is released.
The whole Euro market is bigger than the US...
Would be a great boost for Linux though if they did.
Not a lawer, but the bit of law he was fined under only applies if promoting goods or services: Fair Trading Act 1986 Part 1 S13 SS(g): No person shall, in trade, in connection with the supply or possible supply of goods or services or with the promotion by any means of the supply or use of goods or services,-- g) Make a false or misleading representation with respect to the price of any goods or services; or
I've never heard of a company being forced to stand by the erroneous price in New Zealand. The is targeted at a business trying to mislead the public, not for a mistake. It is not uncommon for a large store to have a sign at the door pointing errors in there advertised prices, specs etc if they made a mistake.
NZ has a law the Fair Trading Act 1986. Part of it is around consumer protection. Basically the part he has been fined under is a section that states business must advertise prices, product spec etc correctly. It doesn't matter if it was in print or online it's advertising. He was warned about it and did nothing, so he was fined. It's not about Big brother jumping in. He broke a law (that pre-dates common usage of the Internet) and he got caught. A number of companies a year get fined for this sort of action, the only reason this got much of a headline is that it was the 1st web-based advertising to be fined under the Act.
Depending on the place it would be about $20-35 (NZ$) for a main meal.
With the decay rates of CDs, it seem like about time!
Data over power networks has been around for a while... There's ever some cheap end-user products http://www.dse.co.nz/cgi-bin/dse.storefront/3f0cab 35072086e4273fc0a87f9906e0/Product/View/XH6774
I think you'll find weta has quite a few sgi boxes too http://www.sgi.com/newsroom/press_releases/2003/ja nuary/weta_digital.html
The government? Which government? I hate to point it out but a number of countries other than the US use the internet. Spammers would just move there business to the most 'spam friendly' country.
The article is in reference to NEW ZEALAND not Australia.
It may be your hosts IP address... I just connected to an AOL mx server from my broadband connection...
well it is informative if you are looking for porn :P
At a guess I'd say the failures are not with the SMSCs so much but more the interconnects between carriers. I know of a few interesting issues with interconnects between CDMA and GSM based networks due to character set differents which have caused messages to be lost.
the 128bps ADSL is the cheapest.
You can also get the full-rate aDSL for a few extra $$.