How about Vs. GMail? Ever heard of plus-addressing? I've been using it lately with great results.
myemail+anythingelse@gmail.com always goes straight to myemail@gmail.com, BUT with a distinct TO address.
I also use this whenever possible. Unfortunately, many web developers think that a "+" in an email address is not valid, even if used before the "@". Or maybe they are too lazy to develop rules that apply different checks for the part before the "@" and the part after, or whatever. The unfortunate fact is that many website registration systems simply won't accept emails like "myemail+anythingelse@gmail.com".
That strikes down the application of Oklahoma's law, which the judge ruled...is not limited to inaccuracies in transmission information that were material, lead to detrimental reliance by the recipient, and were made by a sender who intented that the misstatements be acted upon and either knew them to be inaccurate or was reckless about their truth.
And then, the judge ruled that it didn't violate the CAN-SPAM act (The apellant, mummagraphics argued that the senders of the e-mails mislead mummagraphics as to the origin of the message, when the judge pointed out that it was a marketing e-mail- hence, it had all sorts of links and phone numbers and stuff to contact the people who had sent it.)
Well, the judge appears to have ignored part of the law, which states:
`(a) IN GENERAL- Whoever, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly--
..
`(3) materially falsifies header information in multiple commercial electronic mail messages and intentionally initiates the transmission of such messages,
The fact that the contact information was in the email is immaterial. The sender violated the plain text of the act.
the other thing that bugs me is having to watch adverts at the movies, i mean i just paid £6.50 per seat to watch a movie... why the hell are you bombarding me with adverts? trailers are one thing but adverts? i just PAID you to watch a movie, not be shown fecking ads!
The claim I've heard is that it keeps the price lower.
Well, one of the costs that movies incur is the cost of promoting it by showing trailers -- so, the effect is to balance out the cost.
Of course, this is not totally neutral, since the trailers, if effective, will mean that more people actually watch a movie and hence the fixed cost of making it can be spread between more "customers".
Could there possibly every be a legal way to crack the installer such that someone did not have to accept the EULA? That would certainly create an interesting situation!
Another interesting scenario would be to boot up a brand new PC with a live CD and modify whatever program requires the user to accept the EULA (so that acceptance is not required). Since you never accepted the EULA, there would be no ban on your re-engineering the code (and some legal domains don't allow bans on re-engineering anyway).
Yahoo finance seems to be the only product they have that is best in class
Yes, but with Y!'s recent redesign, they are doing their best to wreck it. I hardly ever use it now, and I don't believe I am alone in using it far less.
In fact, I use Y! far less since its redesign. Whereas it used to be my default for many things except for search and email, now I only go there for specific information.
The court said that the "market" for marijuana isn't limited to one state and therefore to allow a state to legalize it for any reason would affect that interstate marijuana market.
A strict reading of the constitution shows that the Feds are allowed to regulate "Commerce...among the several States," in other words, actual interstate commerce and not "anything that affects interstate commerce." Fundamentally, it is hard to think of any activity that does not affect some kind of interstate commerce, giving the Feds unlimited authority by the reasoning of the supremes.
Probably not, but it's amazing what the Supreme Court has let Congress get away with under the coloring of the interstate commerce clause.
When the Supremes allows Congress to make regulations affecting food grown by a farmer on his own land and eaten in his own house, they gutted the limitations on the federal government's power. Look also at the recent decision about CA's medicinal marijuana law -- essentially what they said was that the Feds could control it because they have a legitimate interest in so doing -- do they understand the concept of a circular argument?
Great idea, unless you were expecting to run this somewhere that did still respect US copyright laws and agreements.
Actually, I think it is not so simple. US copyright law allows you, as the owner of a legally made copy to run the s/w. Since the copy would legally made in Antigua, surely, one would have the right to use it under copyright law.
Patents might be different, since patent law forbids the importation of products that violate US patents.
Sheer size. The NHS employs around a million people (882,000 for England alone) and you are talking about the records for nearly 60 million living people (and the digitised records of dead people - some clinical records are required to be kept for 75 years after the death of the patient).
Maybe the NHS is required to keep these records, but performance is not as required. The NHS lost my records some years back after I was out of the country for a while, then went to a different doctor. Apparently, the first doctor had sent my records off to some central store (since I was not an active patient) and the new doctor was unable to retrieve my records from said central store. If the NHS cannot keep records for live patients, what hope is there for dead patients?
So you think that MORE restrictions are a good idea?
Pure strawman. My point is that we already have restrictions on property ownership and the world has not come to an end. Capitalism is still alive and prospering, despite the current restrictions. Nowhere did I write that I was in favor of more restrictions. All that I want is that the present liberties (fair use) are not removed.
So let's say that getting rid of copyright is a good idea... Would you like to see people who don't want to give it up imprisoned, tortured, or killed? All 3 maybe? Should we have SWAT teams that break into people's houses and sieze private property? How much power do you really want to give our government over what you are allowed to own?
Once again, a strawman. However, you missed an oportunity: I am sure you could work a "think of the children" argument in there if you only tried a little harder.
The sad truth is that you have inferred from my support of existing fair use rights that I feel it would be good to eliminateother property rights, but this is purely incorrect speculation on your part.
Whether downloading is illegal or not ignores the real question, which is does it help artists and should it be illegal?
Wrong. The question should be about respecting private property of all kinds, no matter who it belongs to. The alternative is a slippery slope on which the government tells you what you are allowed and aren't allowed to own.
Copyrights are not real property. "Ownership" of copyrights is only by virtue of what the laws allow.
Oh, and regarding ownership of real property: Get Real! There are already many limitations on the right to own property. Can you buy the mineral rights under your house? Can you buy a slave? Can you legally own drugs without a prescription? Can you own guns with no restrictions?
What about the right to make my own backup copies and to share amongst my own family?
You're talking about two different things here: backups and distribution. One is fair use, the other is not.
I think that you will find that (in the US) "fair use" includes the right to make private copies, which can be shared amongst one's family. Whether it is distribution or not is irrelevant.
What part of it don't you agree with? He really doesn't say anything inflammatory at all. In fact, he goes on and on about a balance and different interests working together.
Ah, the skill of the spinner (Mr. Sherman). What about the right to make my own backup copies and to share amongst my own family? These are legitimate fair uses that Mr. Sherman's organisation is working to eliminate. Why does he not mention these rights?
The other problem with Mr. Sherman's statements is that it serves mostly publishers and not the artists -- while the goal of copyright law is the encourage the creation of artistic works, not to maximise the profits of publishing houses. Whether downloading is illegal or not ignores the real question, which is does it help artists and should it be illegal?
First Degree Murder (pre-mediated murder, or a murder committed while in the process of committing another felony) - pretty much garuntees life in prison, or death.
When did I miss the news that the UK reinstated the death penalty?
Having run into CA's products off and on over the years I've always wondered how the hell they stayed in business...
The only one of their products that I ever used was SuperProject, which actually was very good and made MS-Project look like a toy in comparison. Of course CA dropped this product years ago.
Given that Red Hat licenses its trademarks in Enterprise Linux under restricted conditions (which include buying an annual contract), isn't Oracle going to be encouraging RedHat customers to violate their trademark licenses from RedHat? Isn't this something Red Hat could sue over?
Slashdot Mirror
Of course, this is not totally neutral, since the trailers, if effective, will mean that more people actually watch a movie and hence the fixed cost of making it can be spread between more "customers".
Could there possibly every be a legal way to crack the installer such that someone did not have to accept the EULA? That would certainly create an interesting situation!
Another interesting scenario would be to boot up a brand new PC with a live CD and modify whatever program requires the user to accept the EULA (so that acceptance is not required). Since you never accepted the EULA, there would be no ban on your re-engineering the code (and some legal domains don't allow bans on re-engineering anyway).
In fact, I use Y! far less since its redesign. Whereas it used to be my default for many things except for search and email, now I only go there for specific information.
Patents might be different, since patent law forbids the importation of products that violate US patents.
Next 2 items on EW website: ranking of best/worst Bond girls.
The sad truth is that you have inferred from my support of existing fair use rights that I feel it would be good to eliminateother property rights, but this is purely incorrect speculation on your part.
Oh, and regarding ownership of real property: Get Real! There are already many limitations on the right to own property. Can you buy the mineral rights under your house? Can you buy a slave? Can you legally own drugs without a prescription? Can you own guns with no restrictions?
The other problem with Mr. Sherman's statements is that it serves mostly publishers and not the artists -- while the goal of copyright law is the encourage the creation of artistic works, not to maximise the profits of publishing houses. Whether downloading is illegal or not ignores the real question, which is does it help artists and should it be illegal?
Here is a thought:
Always buy used drives: never new.
Then, if one has to surrender a drive for discovery, point out that deleted files could have been created and deleted by the prior owner of the drive.
Given that Red Hat licenses its trademarks in Enterprise Linux under restricted conditions (which include buying an annual contract), isn't Oracle going to be encouraging RedHat customers to violate their trademark licenses from RedHat? Isn't this something Red Hat could sue over?