what i was saying is some people think they may need it when the internet is out, but actually don't. It is something that needs to be looked at closely on an individual basis before making a decision either way is all.
Here we have me for all IT work and they are really cheap when it comes to any IT expenditures, most of our infrastructure needs to be replaced as it is, and for us the cost of moving to google apps was a great idea.
I understand for some it may not be, I am just saying that it should not be written off out of hand like it was. I have been using gmail since 2004 when you had to have an invite to get on and i tell you this is the first outage that has affected me at all, and it only affected use of the web interface, so its not too bad, and since we have an sla with google we got days added to our contract for free too.
That is the first gmail outage that has affected me since 2004, and i was still able to use it because i use the web interface but also imap it to apples mail app and to my ipod touch
You can always pop/imap your email from google and can use offline access with google email/calendar/docs.
We changed over to google apps here at work and the offline access has been good for us here.
Do you REALLY think that shop lady and the customers singing a rolling stones song inside the shop should pay the rolling stones (cartel association they belong to) a "performance" fee? This isn't changing the subject, it is THE subject at hand in the article. I need no more than a yes or no. This is as short and on topic as I can make it then. It has nothing to do with your code or my landscaping arrangements, nor anything else, today, an exact happening, in the article, the shop lady/shop/customers singing a song inside the shop, and some fee that they allegedly owe because they violated some law and the law allegedly says they owe it. So, yes, or no?
mod parent down...just becuse you use big words doesnt mean you suddenly become insightful.
I would rather see people educated instead of regulated.
Right. That's what this is. The changes are requiring the ads to *educate* the consumers regarding the strings attached to "endorsements". It's a really good thing, that will make it a little bit harder to lie or mislead people. Seriously, nobody is trying to take away your free speech or say that you can't endorse things all that you want. This is just about increasing the amount of truth in advertising.
This is of course, only possible if the writers of P2P software actually give two hoots about the bill.....
As we all know, the authors of P2P software are generally very conscientious about following the law. Not to mention the fact that they all fall under US jurisdiction.