I moved to from Gmail to Fastmail last April, but this April, I moved back to Gmail. I have an email address (on my own domain) that I've used since the late 90's. It's all over the Internet in newsgroup archives, forums, etc. from before anyone was hiding emails from spam scrapers. Consequently I get several hundred spam per day. The FM spam filtering is no where near as good as G filtering. I had to manually flag as spam a couple dozen mails every day as well and go through the spam filter and pick out the false positives. I have no problems with G's spam filtering. The other problem with FM is administering multiple accounts on my domain. While it true it's only something I need to do once, as has been mentioned already, the settings/administration leaves much to be desired. Overall, using Gmail is just more pleasant to me, enough so that it outweighs the concerns (read: Google being creepy) that caused me to leave last April.
Did you train the spam filter with the minimum number of e-mails that is required to activate your personal bayes classifier?
Once your personal database has seen more than 200 spam and 200 non-spam emails, we automatically start using it to classify your incoming mail. Because it's been trained by the exact type of messages you receive, it is normally significantly more accurate at classifying spam than our general database. However, it can only do so once it's been properly trained, which is why we have to wait until it has seen 200 of each type of message before it is activated.
[Directed to those with more legal knowledge] Does an event like this occur because Pennsylvania is a 2-party consent (for recording) state? Would something like this not occur in a 1-party consent state? If so, what are the ramifications for devices like Google Glass? Had the student recorded the bullying on his Glass, I assume he would still be guilty of wiretapping?
Yes, Pennsylvania requires the consent of all parties to recording a conversation:
"Recording laws vary from state to state, but Pennsylvania is one of just 12 states that require the consent of all parties involved. In the remaining states, consent is not mandatory as long as the person recording is present during the conversation."
When Google Glass is used for recording conversations, it's presumably subject to the same laws.
Hardly matters, that was just a threat the principle made, the victim was convicted of "disorderly conduct", which normally translates into "contempt of cop" but I guess in this case was contempt of the authorities.
"I actually found all those flappy clones happening great."
Me too. I especially liked the clones that built upon the basic game play of Flappy Bird (single-finger control of vertical impulses) but added additional challenge, like Heli Math (solve math problems to fly through the gap).
The language problem may have meant that the developer interpreted the milestone as pay upon App Store submission instead of App Store approval. The developer stated in the conversation that if the app was rejected because of his coding mistakes, that he would fix those bugs.
Paying upon approval is ridiculous. I can request a developer write me an app with a buy button that takes the user to my website instead of using Apple's In-App Purchasing. That app would never get approved even though the developer wrote exactly what I asked them to. So I shouldn't pay the developer because Apple denied the app? And no, you shouldn't expect the developer to vet your design before starting development and alerting you of such problems unless you are paying for it. For $800, you are definitely not paying for it.
Who would set up a contract releasing a developer from all obligations, prior to app acceptance, on the handwavy notion that the dev would fix it for free outside of contract?
That's just... not how business works. Milestones are organised such that the client can get the things he values with a reasonable probability. Even setting the milestones up as he did is risky, since the dev could just have decided to take 3/4, ship crappy code, and disappear into the interwebs. I guess in this case the client was relying on the reputation system of e-lance and the relatively small amount of money involved, but still.... when I read that he'd agreed to the final payment on such a flimsy acceptance clause I was ready to read a really bad end to this.
Not sure why people are emphasising the money so much. For a dev in NYC $800 is very little. For a guy in China that's a much better deal. Kind of the whole point of using e-lance, no?
> The language problem may have meant that the developer interpreted the milestone as pay upon App Store submission instead of App Store approval
Well that's developer's problem, isn't it?
> I can request a developer write me an app with a buy button that takes the user to my website instead of using Apple's In-App Purchasing. That app would never get approved even though the developer wrote exactly what I asked them to. So I shouldn't pay the developer because Apple denied the app?
Yes, that's how contracts work. Welcome to the real world.
How is it your problem that the developer agreed to an impossible task?
Obviously not as the developer got full payment. It's both the developer's and client's problem.
"Yes, that's how contracts work. Welcome to the real world.
How is it your problem that the developer agreed to an impossible task?"
Did you miss the part where the client wasn't going to get the app/code unless he paid? As soon as the dev said he needed payment or else the submission was a no-go, it became the client's problem. The "contract", if you could even call it that - good luck to the client trying to seek legal recourse with it, was poorly thought out. "Welcome to the real world."