No, only criminal negligence is criminal. There are plenty of examples of negligent behaviour that are not so egregious as to draw the attention of the police. Of course, where that line is varies from one jurisdiction to the next.
Oh come on, not RTFA is a Slashdot tradition, you can't fault someone for that!
I don't think it matters that much that Google took down the image, it was up for a time, and people under Google's direction trespassed to get that picture. Now having said that, I agree that there is probably not much in the way of damages to be claimed, it's hard to see how someone was financially hurt by having a photo of their house available on Street View, for a short period of time. It's possible that nobody other than the homeowners even looked at the photo, until they filed their suit.
As I posted elsewhere, the grey area would most likely have to do with whether the road is a right-of-way or whether there is an easement - whether or not other people need to use that road to access their own property.
I don't think there needs to have been a sign in place. It would likely be up to google to verify whether the road in question is private or public, unless it was named the way other public roads are named.
If the road of course was a right of way, or if there are easements for it, google might have something, but if it just wasn't posted, they should be SoL.
If the photographers were employees, Google is fucked. One of the protections of being incorporated is that your company is liable for your actions as an employee in most circumstances. If the photographers were contractors, Google could bring them in as Third Parties. Who ultimately pays would depend one which company's policy is covering.
It doesn't matter if they were in anybody's house. The deciding factor is going to be where the photographer stood when he took the picture. If he was on their property, Google will lose. If not, Google will win. The law in these matters goes waaaaaay back.
Of course, the couple may have a harder time proving damages....
In most of those cases, you probably want them to go on your property, or have agreed that they are allowed to go on your property under certain circumstances. You wouldn't want the forbid the mail man, Fedex or UPS from coming to your door, but you could if you want to.
Utility workers have access as a condition of providing their service. I'm not sure about tax appraisers, they may not actually have the right to go on your property whenever they want. The city may be required to give proper notice (the definition of "proper" varying widely of course).
But generally, all these people mentioned above have your (implied or explicit) permission to be on your property.
"...the creation of additional bureaucracies and the government-sponsored advertisements telling parents how they should raise their children and what they should say to them (something that would never have been accepted a generation or two ago)..."
Oh come on, that stuff started several generations ago. Have you seen Reefer Madness? If not, look it up. It's hilarious stoner kitsch now, but back when it was made, it was a serious attempt at anti-drug propaganda, and not the only one. Methods differed then, and the onus of brain-washing rests more in the hands of the government now than it did then, but people in American society have been told what to think and how to think it for a long, long time now.
I mean really, why do they even bother? Shit, everyone knows that all you need to be successful is a good brand. If your product sucks donkey balls, you'll still be profitable, year after year. All you need is a good brand! Experience doesn't matter, quality doesn't matter. Just brand! 100% of Apple's success is due to their brand, not because they make good products. Obviously!
Ahem. may I draw your attention to... Microsoft or perhaps Nike?
What does any of this prove? The original point was a dispute as to whether Apple's policy of bundling OS and hardware hurts the competition. I argue that it doesn't. Apple has had the bundling policy for many many years now, and they've only just started gaining marketshare back from Microsoft (who, incidentally, do not bundle the OS with the hardware, and have enjoyed a monopoly in the OS space).
The Intel/Apple partnership is a mixed blessing: Dell doesn't do as much business with Intel, because they also do business with AMD. If Intel stops listening, there's someone else to get chips from. Apple, by locking into Intel chips, has committed itself in a way that could hurt them if Intel decides they don't like the deal, or wants more money.
You quote several stats, and anecdotal information, showing that Apple's sales are increasing. I don't argue that. I argue that they're increasing now, for reasons other than the OS/hardware bundling.
I'd say that the popularity of the iPod (now THAT's somewhat competition-stifling, the iPod/iTMS bundle bears watching) is a contributing factor. We got our first iMac as an accessory to my wife's iPod.
Also, I think regular consumers are reasoning that if they're going to get into the upgrade cycle and fork out bucks every three years for new hardware/os, they should get an OS that "just works" and not one that is "just good enough".
Check your numbers. unless you're calling Sony, Toshiba, Gateway and others are also small players. Apple is the 3rd largest computer reseller in the world, with over 8.1% of the total market, and gaining fast on HP.
So basically they have about 8.1 percent of the market in installed OSs. Thanks for proving my point. It doesn't surprise me that Apple is a large computer reseller, but they're not anywhere near to holding a monopoly position: they are as I said, one player among many.
They have 66% of the PC user base amoung entering college freshmen. They also, in October of 07, had OS X outsel ALL VERSIONS OF MICROSOFT OS COMBINED in Asia.
You're using relative statistics to make general statements. What percentage of new pc buyers are college freshman? What percentage of OS sales end up in the Asia market?
Slashdot Mirror
replying to clear a false Overrated mod.
No, only criminal negligence is criminal. There are plenty of examples of negligent behaviour that are not so egregious as to draw the attention of the police. Of course, where that line is varies from one jurisdiction to the next.
Oh come on, not RTFA is a Slashdot tradition, you can't fault someone for that!
I don't think it matters that much that Google took down the image, it was up for a time, and people under Google's direction trespassed to get that picture. Now having said that, I agree that there is probably not much in the way of damages to be claimed, it's hard to see how someone was financially hurt by having a photo of their house available on Street View, for a short period of time. It's possible that nobody other than the homeowners even looked at the photo, until they filed their suit.
As I posted elsewhere, the grey area would most likely have to do with whether the road is a right-of-way or whether there is an easement - whether or not other people need to use that road to access their own property.
I don't think there needs to have been a sign in place. It would likely be up to google to verify whether the road in question is private or public, unless it was named the way other public roads are named.
If the road of course was a right of way, or if there are easements for it, google might have something, but if it just wasn't posted, they should be SoL.
If the photographers were employees, Google is fucked. One of the protections of being incorporated is that your company is liable for your actions as an employee in most circumstances. If the photographers were contractors, Google could bring them in as Third Parties. Who ultimately pays would depend one which company's policy is covering.
It doesn't matter if they were in anybody's house. The deciding factor is going to be where the photographer stood when he took the picture. If he was on their property, Google will lose. If not, Google will win. The law in these matters goes waaaaaay back.
Of course, the couple may have a harder time proving damages....
So, are you implying that the Ministry of Agriculture really is in charge of Gundam?
In most of those cases, you probably want them to go on your property, or have agreed that they are allowed to go on your property under certain circumstances. You wouldn't want the forbid the mail man, Fedex or UPS from coming to your door, but you could if you want to.
Utility workers have access as a condition of providing their service. I'm not sure about tax appraisers, they may not actually have the right to go on your property whenever they want. The city may be required to give proper notice (the definition of "proper" varying widely of course).
But generally, all these people mentioned above have your (implied or explicit) permission to be on your property.
In my former life selling electronics, we used the camcorders to see if the infrared on a defective tv remote was working.
"...the creation of additional bureaucracies and the government-sponsored advertisements telling parents how they should raise their children and what they should say to them (something that would never have been accepted a generation or two ago)..."
Oh come on, that stuff started several generations ago. Have you seen Reefer Madness? If not, look it up. It's hilarious stoner kitsch now, but back when it was made, it was a serious attempt at anti-drug propaganda, and not the only one. Methods differed then, and the onus of brain-washing rests more in the hands of the government now than it did then, but people in American society have been told what to think and how to think it for a long, long time now.
Um, my dog runs pretty fast.
Yeah, but we can't start running cars on methane!
Yoshimi, is that you?
My sympathies.
Worse yet, the memo: "Alright, who's the wiseguy who put the O.J. in the urine collection system? And where did our 30 liters of piss go?"
But who the hell wants to take Kevin Costner with them into orbit?
I mean really, why do they even bother? Shit, everyone knows that all you need to be successful is a good brand. If your product sucks donkey balls, you'll still be profitable, year after year. All you need is a good brand! Experience doesn't matter, quality doesn't matter. Just brand! 100% of Apple's success is due to their brand, not because they make good products. Obviously!
Ahem. may I draw your attention to... Microsoft or perhaps Nike?
there won't be any snow in Waterloo in October. Rain, yes and lots of it. No snow.
but the Farmer's markets are awesome.
Indeed. For those who don't get the joke, the UK's health care system is probably (depending of course on the metric) better than Canada's.
Yeah but being down for the whole winter is a drag.
What does any of this prove? The original point was a dispute as to whether Apple's policy of bundling OS and hardware hurts the competition. I argue that it doesn't. Apple has had the bundling policy for many many years now, and they've only just started gaining marketshare back from Microsoft (who, incidentally, do not bundle the OS with the hardware, and have enjoyed a monopoly in the OS space).
The Intel/Apple partnership is a mixed blessing: Dell doesn't do as much business with Intel, because they also do business with AMD. If Intel stops listening, there's someone else to get chips from. Apple, by locking into Intel chips, has committed itself in a way that could hurt them if Intel decides they don't like the deal, or wants more money.
You quote several stats, and anecdotal information, showing that Apple's sales are increasing. I don't argue that. I argue that they're increasing now, for reasons other than the OS/hardware bundling.
I'd say that the popularity of the iPod (now THAT's somewhat competition-stifling, the iPod/iTMS bundle bears watching) is a contributing factor. We got our first iMac as an accessory to my wife's iPod.
Also, I think regular consumers are reasoning that if they're going to get into the upgrade cycle and fork out bucks every three years for new hardware/os, they should get an OS that "just works" and not one that is "just good enough".
Isn't there an EMACS command for that?
Check your numbers. unless you're calling Sony, Toshiba, Gateway and others are also small players. Apple is the 3rd largest computer reseller in the world, with over 8.1% of the total market, and gaining fast on HP.
So basically they have about 8.1 percent of the market in installed OSs. Thanks for proving my point. It doesn't surprise me that Apple is a large computer reseller, but they're not anywhere near to holding a monopoly position: they are as I said, one player among many.
They have 66% of the PC user base amoung entering college freshmen. They also, in October of 07, had OS X outsel ALL VERSIONS OF MICROSOFT OS COMBINED in Asia.
You're using relative statistics to make general statements. What percentage of new pc buyers are college freshman? What percentage of OS sales end up in the Asia market?