Upvote please the guy immediately above who knows a bit about Windows. It's hard, but do-able.
How exactly hard would a have been for the government to anticipate this notification, and dump the traffic outta Twitter's mail servers, and run a quick search for "Oh, by the way, we're just warning you the government is after you", and then cross check the emails to mine personal identifiers?
Not hard, methinks.
When i had to switch in the UK from analog, there was no charge made on SMS.
I was truly shocked when, a few years later, texting took off.
It was like the X.25 channel on ISDN. There, known to a few, but of little use.
Oh, silly me, i bought a phone, to be, err, a phone.
Now, if you suddenly find a way to charge good money for something which is a byproduct waste in your system, why the heck not charge as much as you can?
All you're doing is taxing cowardice. Which is a plentiful thing. Don't tell me you never "hid" behind a text message for convenience sake?
As for Android messing with SMS addressing, is this not a GSM certification spec?
Wish i had mod points.
I read like a dozen news pieces on this case, and you're the first to actually explain it. Nice work.
Now i get it. TomorrowNow was basically set up to skim and scam from the start. No wonder the FBI are interested. Interstate Wire Fraud. Hundreds of thousands of counts.
Also check out KDB Radio at kdb.com. Monthly advance listings are where to look. Pretty good signal for internet radio. Annoying plugin, but i beleive that's an acceptable trade, see this next bit:
Here you go: http://kdb.com/musicsched.htm
sure, it's "programmed music" i.e. to fit their day plan / style, but i've never heard an interruption to any piece.
oh, and change their splodgy yellow/green logo to yellow/brown. Yup, this is a branding shop's dream. "100 mil to redesign your logo sir? But really, it cost you 20 billion to make it that way . . . i think you're lowballing us . . "
They are most informative, for those above crying about imaginary worries that this decision causes liability which did not exist before for free / OSS developers. It doesn't make even things harder for commercial developers, provided they're not a bunch of conniving idiots.
Here's the crux, on which the claim relies and the defense fails . .
in para 66 Toulmin finds: "*Red Sky's advertising materials for Entirety make specific claims for Entirety*. They include, among its other advantages, that Entirety "dramatically increases revenue and occupancy levels, allows quicker check in and check out service to paying guests. "This is the essence of the service Red Sky was claiming to provide for Kingsway. "
But the real fun is to read how Red Sky's case collapsed . .
some choice quotes from the findings, no particular oder, edited for brevity:
"Mr Benson was ill prepared when he came to give evidence. . . He said in his CV that he had been employed for seven years immediately preceeding his employment at Kingsway. This turned out to be untrue. . . His witness statements gave the impression that he was responsible for IT contracts . . In oral evidence he had to admit that, on the contrary, he was employed by Ramesys as a technical installer .
"Mr Edwards was at all material times the Managing Director of Red Sky. He said in oral evidence that he understood the business side but not the actual detail as to how the software was used. "
"Ms Howard found herself in the uncomfortable position of having to defend the Action on behalf of her superiors . . " (they left it to their junior to defend the court proceedings against them! Wow!)
"Reverting to Ms Howard, there appeared to be times when she was covering loyally for the inadequacies of Mr Frost, to whom she reported, and others at Red Sky. Her witness statements contained important and glaring inaccuracies."
so in summary, the vendor lied outragously both about their product capability (not thinking to find some choice disclaimer either in their ad - copy nor in other material representations to the original sale which might have gotten them off the hook) and stumbled into court still telling a pack of lies.
FOR THOSE NOT CONVINCED THAT THIS IS OTHER THAN BUSINESS AS USUAL, PLEASE SHOW ME WHERE IN TFF (the f findings of fact)THERE IS A INTERPRETATION OF LAW AS TO THE EXTENT OF WARRANTY WHICH REVISISE PREVIOUS LAW???!!!
Frankly, it's just an silly workaday case, short in findings, and frankly rather fun to read.
Says plenty about the journalists who highlighted this that they could write more words than obviously they cared to scan - read even from the source.
As to the case itself, meh, nothing to see here, but gotta feel sorry for Ms Howard.
Or very very happy if you're her employment attorney, depending how you look at it . .
And 300 pixels are worth 3.060575122 * 10^614 pictures
Most of which will resemble little more than random noise and have no value.
Looked at from what angle?