1: Why can't I simply move from composing an email to the many labels without being warned about losing my work? Yahoo figured this out and so should Gmail.
You can and it does. Not sure why this is not working for you. It brings up a pop-up that says: "Your message has not been sent, do you want to discard? OK/Cancel". You can also click "save" at any point to put it in your drafts folder.
2: The interface is still wanting big time. Heck this is 2010!
This is subjective. Much better than any other web interface in my opinion. As others have said, you can use IMAP if you like. Also, the education edition which Yale would get can use an Outlook MAPI plugin (very fast!)
3: Though Gmail's search is fast, filtering is still so basic. YahooMail's filter is good. Google can surely do better. When I search for an email from someone, I would like the opportunity to filter further "on the fly"...in real time...say by attachment type if any, subject and so on. Currently the filter functionality does not cut it!
Again, this is a subjective interface preference. I would prefer it wait until I click "search" again.
4: Sorting by sender, subject, time of arrival etc is non existent! This is on a service that prides itself on users never having to delete email! For those with tens of thousands of email, Gmail is mediocre!
Try the "show search options" link. All the features you mention are included. No need to know complicated codes. I'll grant you that searching by exact hour or minute is more difficult (requires manually structuring your query), but that is a small issue easily solved by education.
I just dealt with a truly nasty version yesterday though that not only sets itself up as the handler for EXE files, but also closes the task manager immediately when you try to open it. In order to remove it I had to boot the machine using a Linux live CD, and then remove the offending files.
144,000 for "i hate t-mobile"
468,000 for "i hate verizon"
444,000 for "i hate at&t"
286,000 for "i hate sprint"
Searching 'I hate t-mobile' on google (no quotes) comes up with results that include "i", "hate", "t", and "mobile" separately. Your research method is highly flawed.
I watch U.S. public television myself, and I like a lot of the programming, but I would still support eliminating it because I don't think it's a good use of public money.
Do you realize you are talking about
Wikipedia actually gives a good definition of ex post facto: "is a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences of acts committed or the legal status of facts and relationships that existed prior to the enactment of the law".
IANAL, but it seems that changes to the consequences for either better or worse is unconstitutional. The president can pardon, but a law passed to give immunity? There is probably lot's of legal precedent here that I am not aware of.
Also, the EFF claims it was unconstitutional because it violates the separation of powers.
I hadn't thought of the fact the computers they mentioned might be the banking websites themselves.
After re-reading TFA, it seems that he got online login credentials that were in documents on the victims computers, then logged into those accounts.
Definitely definable as accessing a "protected computer" by the definition you provided.
If you have a citation for the info you provided, please provide that also, thanks.
This law actually states it is a crime when "Knowingly accessing a computer without authorization in order to obtain national security data". So even if the computer is not protected, it is a crime if you access it knowingly without authorization to to retrieve national security information. That part's not so bad.
It does state though that "Knowingly accessing a protected computer with the intent to defraud and there by obtaining anything of value" is a crime. So using a computer to commit fraud is worse than stealing the information another way? I don't get it.
Sorry for the inaccuracies in the first post.
This is from the The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act that states it is a criminal offense when: "Knowingly accessing a protected computer with the intent to defraud and there by obtaining anything of value."
Poorly written law if you ask me. What if the computer is protected but some of the files are not? How do you define a "protected" computer anyway? What if it is locked in a safe, but connected to the internet with no safeguards? By definition of this law, if I retrieve national security information that someone posts on a
Of course in this case, they had him on the Wire Fraud and Aggravated Identity Theft also.
The good thing about this law is that it does not state it is a crime to "Knowingly access a protected computer with no intent to do harm".
I agree with the benefits of the Theora codec, but it seemed odd to include it in the HTML5 spec because that didn't seem consistent with what the HTML spec represents. It would be awesome, but odd.
If you are saying that the Codex Sinaiticus along with older portions of other manuscripts have no mention of the resurrection, then I call foul. Are you a historian?
I say the key to success of Constantine's venture was acceptance of Christians coupled with the power and influence he already had.