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.

Property prices in London are mental. that, matey, is because 60% of the housing stock isn't on the market, because of subsidised housing.

You mean bricking up windows: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Window_tax ? Neatly followed by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brick_tax

Nope, easy to get one of these: http://www.eizo.com/global/products/atc/sq2801/index.html i just would be amazed if they cost less than $10K plus $100K "procurement fee" but seriously, if someone dared to mass produce a spec even close to that, even for several grand, i'm pretty sure they'd sell fairly briskly.

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.

This is /., so that static page & those track play timings listed in the last 5chars following a parens without a space, and those schedule separators (" Eine Kleine Morgenmusik 6 to 9am", "Rhapsody 9am to Noon" etc.) can be usesul, right? :-)

You mean:
Beyond Pollution
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 . . "

Giving benefit of doubt, you're being sarcastic i hope. Here's the classic reference, from 1955: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entores_Ltd_v_Miles_Far_East_Corporation Which actual findings are admirably geeky, relying as they do in "implied ACKs" (my phrase, which i think fits nicely, if you read the case) Which same also neatly renders silly your phrase: "presence in . . country by virtue of". Quite apart from personally disliking teleportation, the point fo the matter is the communication, not "presence". Lawyers, IMNSHO, the really good ones at least, i believe pioneered concepts of AI, way before Stanford got into it :-)

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?

"what he wants is a slice of Google pie, the bigger the slice the better." that rather begs the question: what part of whose pie was google slicing for themselves in the first place? as much as i seen social network benefits from search engines of all kinds, i'm hard pressed to se how they contributed to the sales bottom line of any traditional media company. To me, forgive my bad think, i just remember google as the search engine that would never sell adverts, or would have you think so, aided surely by competitors who whored themselves without doubt,the same company who just became the controller of 60% of their own advertising market, being all of which they appeared - to my recall - to be against. contrary to populatr opinion i see clasrly the arguement that google's revenue (and any other SE) is a derivative of work provided at traditonal media's expense. Maybe i just seen too many aggregator blogs, big names amongst them, who sign off with taglines as "via X via Y via ~insert actual media company here~" To me at least that's a circuitous con, and i the reader become complicit with that. No doubt i find "access" to sources in a novel and convenient way, but really - and just like much trad media, how much am i reading si regurgitated PR? If you think my views are so contrarian, think for amoment that in this internet model, if i publshed the Financial Times, suddenly not only do i have to give copies away fro free, but i have to deliver to your doorstep for free too. What i see constantly, so much so i almost came to believe it myself, is argument for the benefits of meta syndication (blogging, linking, and really dubious practises such as majority citation and replublication) as if it is entirely harmless. The point being, at the bottom line, does any of this benefit major news providors? Moreover, do you think your favourite blog can sustain a adequate alternative? Or, is the question rather that maybe if the revenues were not so fanciful and derivative of other sources, that your favourite blog would by now have replaced the old media equivalent, in terms that the original no longer survives, and your eblog can manage the staffing etc. I am not suggesting i have solutions, but whenever i see this argument, i see it merely discussed one - way, as is the general drift here. Pity that "old media" (and why is it old, if so oft - quoted, or do you mean "yesterday's news" assuming ~fave blog~ is out gettiong tomorrows as opposed to rehashing something read off the wire . . ) i simply don't undestand how old media [sic] fails so spectacularly in engaging the debate with specifics to support their argument and their feeling as to rights and moral rights. Thus, the supposedly eloquent are dumstruck, and naturally are cannon - fodder for the online comunities. But that still does not make a rebuttal of News Corp's claim, or any other similar claim. The emperer may have no clothes, but they remain the emperor, assuming they wake up that is. So many of the comments here just make me want to shout "freetard" but the reality is that eventually this debate si going to get very interesting indeed. I envy with sincerity anyone just in college or education right now, fo rth efreedom of access and information they have, and would argue we ought to keep such facility on pain of loss of a tremendous new generation of ideas. But we ignore the wishes and concerns of the biggest employers in media at our peril. Merely biasing against their position (the cynical "good luck with that" retorts, e.g.) risks polarising the argument and placing it in a wholly political sphere. If the game is the Sonny Bono Act, then i fear the masses will loose. The dark irony in me wonders if political precoccupation with international wars and deflation isn't the only thing distracting government from being suaded by the very real forces of traditional media lobby. We ultimately all have a choice how to deal with this, possibyl in ways which will affect long term outcomes. Is it only me that wonders who a ISP should be the only person i actually pay for so much access? My longstanding personal view is that this pie is very imbalanced indeed. But i'll not venture to apportion slices before being very sure we have a finite cake. and on a random slightly personal note, the next real "freetard" who dismisses trad media's positioning out of hand as ilegitmate ought to be condemned to s long slopw month working the phones to sell a page of advertising in some dead trees, just to learn some empathy.