Oh, sorry. That was the Michigan law. The Utah law:
(2) A person who violates this chapter is subject to:
(a) a cease and desist order; and
(b) an administrative fine of not more than $2,500 for each separate communication sent in violation of Section 13-39-202.
(3) (a) A person who intentionally violates this chapter is subject to [...]
So yes, a person who unintentionally violates it is responsible, apparently - otherwise, there'd be no point in an extra section for intentional violations. There's a special case to exclude ISPs, but nothing for accidents. Wow, have fun, whoever lives there:|
I often find that due to lax IT standards and efforts at my university, my e-mail is sometimes used to transfer spam or malicious viruses through no fault of my own. Am I to blame if an 'illegal' email reaches one of these addresses in the registry? I would like to think not, but the law is vague enough to permit such reprecusions.
(2) A person does not violate section 5a because the person is an
intermediary between the sender and recipient in the transmission
of an electronic message that violates section 5a or unknowingly
provides transmission of electronic messages over the person's
computer network or facilities that violate section 5a.
(3) It is a defense to an action brought under this section that the
communication was transmitted accidentally. The burden of proving
that the communication was transmitted accidentally is on the
sender.
What's so vague about that? If you can prove you're not responsible, you're not. If you can't, you are. Maybe not a good idea, but I don't see how it's unclear.
Sec. 5. (1) A person shall not send, cause to be sent, or conspire with a third party to send a message to a contact point that has been registered for more than 30 calendar days with the department if the primary purpose of the message is to, directly or indirectly, advertise or otherwise link to a message that advertises a product or service that a minor is prohibited by law from purchasing, viewing, possessing, participating in, or otherwise receiving.
Information that is not an advertisement isn't covered by that.
Also, your list is fully covered simply by "adult".
(5) The sending of a message described in subsection (1) is prohibited only if it is otherwise a crime for the minor to purchase, view, possess, participate in, or otherwise receive the product or service.
Does that mean that it disallows sending of adult e-mail only, while allowing everything else, or am I misunderstanding?
Hmm. I thought that star is then its sun, and that the Sun, when talking about stars, refers only to our own sun. Right or wrong? (Doesn't make your point less valid either way - I'm just curious.)
My team has recently been given the task of implementing internationalization (i18n) in our MySQL databases (PHP-interfaced). Essentially, for every article X, we need it presented in any number of languages (once translated).
Let's check that link, shall we?
The distinction between internationalization and localization is subtle but important. Internationalization is the adaptation of products for potential use virtually everywhere, while localization is the addition of special features for use in a specific locale. Subjects unique to localization include:
goto may not be exclusive to DOS, but could you please name any other language in which the syntax for labels and for goto is like that? Someone mentioned csh, but doesn't the colon go after the label in that?
I think you misunderstood what I was saying. I was saying that that paragraph is irrelevant if it isn't added, nothing more. I didn't post my opinion on whether GPL-licensed fonts have any effect on documents using those fonts.
To use this exception, add this text to the license notice of each file in the package (to the extent possible), at the end of the text that says the file is distributed under the GNU GPL:
It clearly doesn't apply if a font is distributed under the GPL without such an addition.
That (arguably unlike the kernel module) is completely his own code (according to the copyright notice, anyway). He distributed it to others under the LGPL, but as the copyright owner he himself isn't bound by that.
No, it isn't Microsoft that did such a good job of that, it's notices such as
/* As a special exception, when this file is copied by Bison into a Bison output file, you may use that output file without restriction. This special exception was added by the Free Software Foundation in version 1.24 of Bison. */
that did it. Obviously, with Bison there's no problem because of that exception, but the problem is that that exception applies only to Bison, not other code generators. Output from GPLed software can be GPLed itself; it depends on how much it copies instead of generates. (I haven't tried to find out if it would actually be a problem with this particular program, though.)
Slashdot Mirror
Sec. 5. (1) A person shall not send, cause to be sent, or conspire
with a third party to send a message to a contact point that has been
registered for more than 30 calendar days with the department if the
primary purpose of the message is to, directly or indirectly,
advertise or otherwise link to a message that advertises a product or
service that a minor is prohibited by law from purchasing, viewing,
possessing, participating in, or otherwise receiving.
Information that is not an advertisement isn't covered by that.
Also, your list is fully covered simply by "adult".
(5) The sending of a message described in subsection (1) is prohibited
only if it is otherwise a crime for the minor to purchase, view,
possess, participate in, or otherwise receive the product or service.
Does that mean that it disallows sending of adult e-mail only, while allowing everything else, or am I misunderstanding?
http://www.bartleby.com/141/strunk.html#1
Hmm. I thought that star is then its sun, and that the Sun, when talking about stars, refers only to our own sun. Right or wrong? (Doesn't make your point less valid either way - I'm just curious.)
Extra points if your code looks innocent under syntax coloring;
:)
You wouldn't stand a chance
It doesn't seem to be copied. The same guy simply submitted it to both sites.
Also some of the *BSDs.
Damnit, it's not suddenly theft just because it's Microsoft.
goto may not be exclusive to DOS, but could you please name any other language in which the syntax for labels and for goto is like that? Someone mentioned csh, but doesn't the colon go after the label in that?
You completely missed the point. bash doesn't support goto in any way whatsoever. The goto syntax that was used is from DOS batch files.
I think you misunderstood what I was saying. I was saying that that paragraph is irrelevant if it isn't added, nothing more. I didn't post my opinion on whether GPL-licensed fonts have any effect on documents using those fonts.
You forgot to quote this part:
To use this exception, add this text to the license notice of each file in the package (to the extent possible), at the end of the text that says the file is distributed under the GNU GPL:
It clearly doesn't apply if a font is distributed under the GPL without such an addition.
None of those are free. The discussion was about proprietary formats versus free formats, not about paying money.
Well, if you heard the movie was made with C3 Construction Blocks, would you be as intrigued as if you heard LEGOS?
No. Can you now guess why it'd be nice to know about that in advance?
From the FAQ you linked to:
[...] the preprocessor macro NULL is #defined (by or ) with the value 0, possibly cast to (void *)
You're still right about !ptr being equal to ptr != 0 or ptr != NULL, of course.
That (arguably unlike the kernel module) is completely his own code (according to the copyright notice, anyway). He distributed it to others under the LGPL, but as the copyright owner he himself isn't bound by that.
There's a link to http://www.intuit.com/support/quicken/sunset/. You can see the official reason there.
My message wasn't a serious one, and I had hoped the message made that clear.
If the top 60 are warez channels, that seems to support the claim :)