No, they are likely exempt. Being 100% security related is only an exception for one of the two conditions.
And as stated before, ads are not the only thing that can cause a message to be deemed a commercial electronic message, so it's not as simple as "do we have ads? no? then it must be ok to send".
If it's easier for you to blame Microsoft than to realize this legislation is a real problem for many organizations, then that's cool, you're entitled to your opinion and I'll stop trying to change it.
If they're 100% security related, then they likely are exempt. The problem for Microsoft is making sure that they currently are 100% security related, and continue to be 100% security related in the future. The second they introduce non-security related content of a "commercial character", the law applies.
The problem is the FAQ gives a non-exhaustive list of examples. It's pretty much impossible to tell what is covered and what is not because the definition of Commercial Electronic Message depends on the definition of Commercial Activity, which in turn depends on the definition of Commercial Character, which is not defined.
(I just posted relevant quotes in a message above this one if someone wants quick reference for the two definitions).
CASL covers much more than just that. It covers all types of commercial electronic messages, where CEMs are defined as:
For the purposes of this Act, a commercial electronic message is an electronic message that, having regard to the content of the message, the hyperlinks in the message to content on a website or other database, or the contact information contained in the message, it would be reasonable to conclude has as its purpose, or one of its purposes, to encourage participation in a commercial activity.
Then "commercial activity" is defined as:
"commercial activity" means any particular transaction, act or conduct or any regular course of conduct that is of a commercial character, whether or not the person who carries it out does so in the expectation of profit, other than any transaction, act or conduct that is carried out for the purposes of law enforcement, public safety, the protection of Canada, the conduct of international affairs or the defence of Canada.
Then there is no definition of "commercial character" so you're at a dead end. If you call in and ask, they say they have no clue, it'll be up to the courts to sort it out if/when lawsuits are filed.
But, no, you're not going to be sent to prison for years over a $49 theft.
Tell that to Issac Ramirez. Sure, it was a $199 VCR and not a $49 whatever, but yes with some of those crazy three strikes laws you may find yourself in prison for some pretty stupid reasons.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-strikes_law#Cases
I'll bet the guy who said "Crap! Robin Hood airport is closed. You've got a week and a bit to get your shit together otherwise I'm blowing the airport sky high." expected the police to do the same thing. Guess how that turned out for him.
Maybe my sight is not what it used to be, but I don't see that link in the main Quicktime page nor the Quicktime download page? May I ask where you found it?
It's directly below the picture of the smiling kids on the page your second link leads to (Quicktime download page). It's also the only match if you search for "stand".
How is clicking the "QuickTime Standalone Installer" link (http://www.apple.com/quicktime/download/standalon e.html) very difficult?
I do agree about the QT player though -- I've yet to come across any content that has made me want to install it!
With the addition of Podcasting to the dictionary, I wonder if that opens up the possibility of a universally accepted 10 letter acrostic puzzle solution? I'll bet Ted Clarke peed his pants when he read this, that single additional word must give him thousands/millions/billions of new combinations to try. (Any math genius know the exact significance of this?)
Also, where did the "pod" come from? Is it just because it makes "podcast" nicely rhyme with "broadcast". Why not "zodcast" in that case. Or is it just because the iPod is popular so they wanted to get a piece of that hot pod action?
It only took me two clicks and 10 seconds to download the free version. Granted, on the second page the link for the free version is not nearly as noticeable as the big "Download Now" button for the PLUS version, but it says right above the button that it's a link for the PLUS version, and right below that it costs $20, so if you clicked on that and got rerouted, I wouldn't blame Real.
I agree about not needing the proprietary format though. I really hate finding sites that only have audio/video clips playable in Real's player.
How do you prevent the situation where you post a comment, someone is in the process of replying, and you go change your comment. Technically you changed your post before anybody replied, but depending on what you changed, the in-process reply is no longer going to make sense.
Face it, you should have hit Preview first. Since you obviously didn't, that's your fault and not a fault of the software.
I doubt it is coincidence. If you look, the "Goods and Services" line is the same for both Milo Cripps' entry and Google's entry. Chances are you're right, and Milo was bought out at some point by Google. How else could Google claim first use in commerce of 1998?
13,545,370/807 = 16785 -- makes sense 16785/3 = 5595 -- wtf is this for?
You already used your "messages per account" number when dividing into the total number of messages, which (assuming 807 is the actual average number of posts per user) gives you the number of active users. So why do you then divide the result by 3? If you really want to work your "I have 3 accounts" value into your stupid-ass equations, try this:
Slashdot Mirror
I hope Bennett doesn't see this and start including rules for how we're allowed to reply to his posts...
Looks like she's out in the middle of nowhere. Definitely not the burbs anyway. What harm is a bike ride if she doesn't come in contact with anybody
No, they are likely exempt. Being 100% security related is only an exception for one of the two conditions.
And as stated before, ads are not the only thing that can cause a message to be deemed a commercial electronic message, so it's not as simple as "do we have ads? no? then it must be ok to send".
If it's easier for you to blame Microsoft than to realize this legislation is a real problem for many organizations, then that's cool, you're entitled to your opinion and I'll stop trying to change it.
If they're 100% security related, then they likely are exempt. The problem for Microsoft is making sure that they currently are 100% security related, and continue to be 100% security related in the future. The second they introduce non-security related content of a "commercial character", the law applies.
The problem is the FAQ gives a non-exhaustive list of examples. It's pretty much impossible to tell what is covered and what is not because the definition of Commercial Electronic Message depends on the definition of Commercial Activity, which in turn depends on the definition of Commercial Character, which is not defined.
(I just posted relevant quotes in a message above this one if someone wants quick reference for the two definitions).
Then "commercial activity" is defined as:
Then there is no definition of "commercial character" so you're at a dead end. If you call in and ask, they say they have no clue, it'll be up to the courts to sort it out if/when lawsuits are filed.
But, no, you're not going to be sent to prison for years over a $49 theft.
Tell that to Issac Ramirez. Sure, it was a $199 VCR and not a $49 whatever, but yes with some of those crazy three strikes laws you may find yourself in prison for some pretty stupid reasons. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-strikes_law#Cases
I'll bet the guy who said "Crap! Robin Hood airport is closed. You've got a week and a bit to get your shit together otherwise I'm blowing the airport sky high." expected the police to do the same thing. Guess how that turned out for him.
As if people citing wikipedia wasn't bad enough, you're getting your facts from some random angelfire hosted webpage?
How is clicking the "QuickTime Standalone Installer" link (http://www.apple.com/quicktime/download/standalon e.html) very difficult?
I do agree about the QT player though -- I've yet to come across any content that has made me want to install it!
With the addition of Podcasting to the dictionary, I wonder if that opens up the possibility of a universally accepted 10 letter acrostic puzzle solution? I'll bet Ted Clarke peed his pants when he read this, that single additional word must give him thousands/millions/billions of new combinations to try. (Any math genius know the exact significance of this?)
Also, where did the "pod" come from? Is it just because it makes "podcast" nicely rhyme with "broadcast". Why not "zodcast" in that case. Or is it just because the iPod is popular so they wanted to get a piece of that hot pod action?
If you look on the download page, there is a link to the stand-alone version:
e .html
http://www.apple.com/quicktime/download/standalon
Did you read the full sentence? If "you're" is correct, then his expanded sentence becomes "But you are sentiment is correct."
I think you are correction of his correction is wrong...
don't start now. The summary pretty much IS the article.
It only took me two clicks and 10 seconds to download the free version. Granted, on the second page the link for the free version is not nearly as noticeable as the big "Download Now" button for the PLUS version, but it says right above the button that it's a link for the PLUS version, and right below that it costs $20, so if you clicked on that and got rerouted, I wouldn't blame Real.
I agree about not needing the proprietary format though. I really hate finding sites that only have audio/video clips playable in Real's player.
As usual, the book is cheaper at amazon: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1590 595009/qid=1126809765/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-2832 463-9709664?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
(Don't worry, no referrer id in the link, I'm not trying to get rich off of you)
Apparently not, 50% Offtopic & 50% Overrated
How do you prevent the situation where you post a comment, someone is in the process of replying, and you go change your comment. Technically you changed your post before anybody replied, but depending on what you changed, the in-process reply is no longer going to make sense.
Face it, you should have hit Preview first. Since you obviously didn't, that's your fault and not a fault of the software.
Have you not noticed how letigious our society has become? Suing is more like the first action rather than the last resort nowadays.
I doubt it is coincidence. If you look, the "Goods and Services" line is the same for both Milo Cripps' entry and Google's entry. Chances are you're right, and Milo was bought out at some point by Google. How else could Google claim first use in commerce of 1998?
LOL -1 Redundant. Does that mean the moderators are agreeing with jhol, and saying it is common knowledge that Scoria is going to die alone? BURN!
13,545,370/807 = 16785 -- makes sense
16785/3 = 5595 -- wtf is this for?
You already used your "messages per account" number when dividing into the total number of messages, which (assuming 807 is the actual average number of posts per user) gives you the number of active users. So why do you then divide the result by 3? If you really want to work your "I have 3 accounts" value into your stupid-ass equations, try this:
13,545,370/2421 = 5594.9
5594.9 * 3 = 16784.8
People won't congratulate you when it works. But when it doesn't work, you can be sure shit will hit the fan.