It's from the same IP address as their other marketing emails regarding digital subscriptions and also their "Exclusively for Times Subscribers" newsletters

208.70.142.121

It's from them or their marketing partner.
I'm putting my money on a marketing campaign gone wrong.

If you have line of sight, you might consider reading 'Diary of a Not-spot' posted on The Register.
Hopefully some of what he's tried and gone through could be of help to you.

Diary of a Not-spot: One man's heroic struggle for broadband
Diary of a Not-spot: The readers speak
Diary of a Not-spot – the final chapter
Diary of a not-spot: Breaking the BT barrier

More like:
In Elected Officials we have to trust.
All others we polygraph.

The Senate Foreign Intelligence Committee is a great example of this.

Secure Syslog?!?
I'm still waiting for regular syslog on Windows.

Not again!
Adobe just released the update two weeks ago to fix the Create PDF plugin so it would work with FF6.
This is getting out of hand.

Thanks for all you've done.

This is one site I truly come to for the comments.
I often lurk and rarely post, I'm just not that social.
It's an end of an era now that Taco is gone.
But thanks for the OMG PONIES!!!

Obligatory XKCD: http://xkcd.com/301/

Right now they are all pointing to different pages. The description appears to be the same for all but the requisition number on each is different, as is the URL.

Unless this in itself can be extended using plugins, this means a great majority of people who browse the web will be limited to viewing those h.264 datastreams.

I wonder how many of those viewers and publishers will be correctly licensed? There have been blog posts from mainstream sites pointing out that some licenses (even for very expensive video editing software) don't actually cover people for everything they think it covers them for in h.264 production and distribution.

IIRC there was even some real stupidity where one end violated their license if the other end had been done without an official license (license violations when viewing with a licensed viewer videos that were made without a license?)

Sony is not forcing the change - don't accept the new update.

I have a box of 8-inch floppies somewhere, a whopping 360KB each. Genuine IBM media in an IBM box! At least if you lose one of those, you haven't just lost your entire music or picture collection.

BMW Z4? I've had other cars with no space for a spare that didn't have run flats. Contrary to popular belief, this is perfectly legal. I'm sure not all countries (and all states) have the same regulations here though.

I do understand that there may be a difference between information that a person picks up in their day to day life and information that a company gathers in the course of doing business, so it may be that facebook's default position is more restrictive than a private person's.

Among other things the California Constitution defines privacy as an inalienable right, and the courts generally have ruled widespread invasion of privacy by corporations as illegal. You're right, though, that there's no specific set of laws that covers this, AFAIK, but rather interpretations thereof.

Ad revenue is irrelevant as that is external to to the facebook/user relationship.

Is it really? The fact that you will be advertised to is mentioned in the terms of service, so I don't think that's external to the relationship at all.

In fact, one can use facebook without providing any information about yourself.

Not entirely. I would argue that merely having an account means that other people you know can find you, and thus are more likely to remain users (which brings in ad revenue). Thus, even if you provide no more information than the bare minimum (name and email), you are still providing something of value to Facebook---your connections with other people.

But that was a pretty influential 5%, even if I made a lot of fun of them at a time.

Its not facebook they hate, its the iPad.