More and more, Texas rocks. They eve have their own power grid, exempt from federal oversight. How long before they break off and become their own nation again?
Too bad about this stuff. Then again, I live here. The way people in NYC talk you'd think Texas was a cesspool and NYC has flower-scented farts. Guess it's not true.
It's worse than that. If a yellow light is short enough, you will neither have enough time to break, nor to make it through the intersection. If the light is shortened sufficiently, anybody without powerful breaks or who is going a few MPH over the speed limit will have to run the red light. Break what?
Google took millions of pictures and has trespassed more than once, which is documented by the very photos they have taken. That makes them a repeat offender, no? I really don't get why you think Google hasn't done anything wrong.
Normal Person: For the last time, I'm pretty sure what's Google's doing is trespassing. ./ know-it-all: But Google's got what nerds crave. It's got street view. ./ user #2: So wait a minute. What you're saying is, you don't think that Google should trespass?
Normal Person: Yes. ./ user #2: Not even on a 'private road'?
Normal Person: Well, I mean... A private road is a grey area maybe, but definitely not a driveway. But yeah, that's the idea. ./ know-it-all: But Google's got what nerds crave. ./ user #2: Yeah, it's got street view.
Normal Person: Okay, look. The people that live in at least one of these houses are complaining. Google seems to be trespassing. Other people seem to think so, too. So I'm pretty sure that this Google stuff's not working, at least not the way they are currently doing it. Now I'm no technologist, but I do know that if you put yourself on private property, it's called trespassing. ./ user #2: Well, people take pictures of my house, and I don't mind. ./ know-it-all: Hey, that's good! Are you a lawyer or something?!
Normal Person: Okay, look. You want to solve this problem, right? So why don't we just try to talk about it, okay, and not worry about what nerds crave? ./ user #2: But Google's GOT what nerds crave. ./ user #3: Yeah. It's got street view.
Normal Person: What ARE the legal implications of driving a van around people's yards to make something called "street view"? Do any of you even know? ./ know-it-all: It's what they do at Google.
Normal Person: Yeah, but WHY do they do this at Google?! ./ user #2: Cuz Google's got street view.
I don't care if you try to have me arrested for stalking. I was trying to point out that you wanted to have your cake and eat it to. Seemed like you were saying Google should be able to take pictures of this guys house from a private road, sure I can do that too but then you'll invoke stalking. Then I took a stand against that. Yeah, that's for the courts (and ultimately your peers) to decide.
I guess I'll go and look at this OTHER article that showed up today, where Google drove right up the driveway. Since we are discussing the minutiae here instead of the big picture ("Do-No-Evil's trespassing, privacy issues etc.") let's agree to disagree.
Why is that? I'm doing it every day whether you are there or not, and so it's systematic. I'm not harassing you, after all your house is there, it's not underground or invisible, and doesn't have a sign on it about no photos. Why stalking? Stalking your house? Or does it make you feel like your privacy is being invaded so you invoke this stalking thing that doesn't really apply?
Taking a picture of my house is fine and not against any law. If you are repeatedly doing the same action for no discernable reason and I perceive that as a threat to me and my family, then yes that does fall under stalking law and I can have you arrested or removed. It's the continual repeated action that elevates it from just taking a picture to harassment. It's got nothing to do with privacy.
I'm taking pictures of your house, not you. And I'm doing it whether you're there or not. From the street. Who are you to tell me not to do it. Maybe my "no discernable reason" is I'm doing an "art project" about the aging of your house. Who are you to get up in my face about stalking? Hell, unlike Google, I'm not even trespassing. Stop with your baseless charges so the courts aren't full of nonsense and can get around to real cases, like whether large corporations have to right to send their agents onto private property, take photographs of what they find there, put them and other information about them into databases, and finding ways to make money from that.
How many tourists in say the Caribbean or Italy take pictures of the interesting houses while there? Should they all get sued? Good luck suing someone in Italy. Or the Caribbean for that matter.
So you're ok with just suing Americans in America because it is easier? Either it's a crime or it isn't.
I'm saying a lot of things. First, what is a crime or not a crime is somewhat a function of the geopolitical entity you happen to be standing in. It's a crime to drive if you're a woman in some countries. It isn't here. So yeah, I'm okay with Americans using the court system for its intended purpose and with our laws, sure. One set of those laws deal with trespassing on private property. There's also precedent for devaluing property and some other precedent for mental anguish. It's up for the courts (not you) to decide if they apply here. That's what the courts are for.
I'm also saying much of the Caribbean and Italy pretty much depend on tourists to have a functional economy. Italy hardly has a government half the time, do you think the court system is in working order? Good luck suing a tourist (your example) in either place.
> Is your house on a private road, set way back from other houses, and surrounded by trees?
No. And since 99.99999% of houses in the United States are assuredly not, it hardly seems unusual to photograph them. If someone drove up a private drive and took photographs of a house for which the owner took explicit steps to keep private, then the photographer clearly did not have license to be there. That's trespassing, and the owner has a legitimate claim. Thanks for backing me up. This all seems so obvious. It's like people are all drinking the Google "do no evil" kool-aid.
Which seems kind of strange. The "problem users" are those savvy ones who transmit tons of data, who are the same ones who will probably change this setting. What's the point in throttling the non-savvy users who just do light web-browsing anyway?
So later when they sue you, they can say you took a specific action to opt into the sharing frenzy. So when you get the cease-and-desist and they turn off your service, they have one more flimsy piece of evidence in their case. Sure maybe this will get overruled eventually, but it can do some damage for a while.
Block traffic from inside machines that are not mail machines TO port 25 on destination machines. If these guys are sending SPAM from your machine then you pretty much have to hit port 25 on the target machines.
If someone is running a mail server on an exposed port other than 25 then they're not getting much mail anyway.
Also, the ISP doesn't necessarily care, they could just look at their 95th percentile graphs and send a larger bill, and cap their max bandwidth so they feel the pain. When the customer calls to complain about the slow connection, hell, sell them antivirus software, services, and seminars.
Maybe I'll drive around in my van up and down your block and take pictures of your house and your neighbors' houses every day. And I can start a website where I post those photos. Just those.
As long as you don't break any laws, then go ahead and waste your time. Although I could probably get you on a stalking charge if you kept it up.
Why is that? I'm doing it every day whether you are there or not, and so it's systematic. I'm not harassing you, after all your house is there, it's not underground or invisible, and doesn't have a sign on it about no photos. Why stalking? Stalking your house? Or does it make you feel like your privacy is being invaded so you invoke this stalking thing that doesn't really apply?
Maybe you have less privacy "needs" than the dude in this house, but it sounds like you still have some, or why would you think to try to "get" me on stalking charges?
How many tourists in say the Caribbean or Italy take pictures of the interesting houses while there? Should they all get sued?
Good luck suing someone in Italy. Or the Caribbean for that matter.
And if a nefarious individual trespasses on your property, and is dumb enough to take photos of their trespass and post it on a website, you'd be giving them a Darwin award for stupidity. But Google gets off the hook, yet that's essentially what they've done.
People walk past my house every day. I have no reasonable expectation that someone will not see the front of my house. Likewise, I have no reasonable expectation that someone will not take a picture of it, regardless of their purpose. If it can be seen by one person without license, it can be seen be all people without license. Is your house on a private road, set way back from other houses, and surrounded by trees?
You do? Do the people that live in that house? I mean it's way back off the street on a PRIVATE ROAD with a bunch of trees around it. They don't seem like they have that expectation. Not everyone thinks the same thoughts, or does the same things. Status is different to different people.
Maybe I'll drive around in my van up and down your block and take pictures of your house and your neighbors' houses every day. And I can start a website where I post those photos. Just those.
Your house isn't invisible, underground, and it doesn't have a sign on it saying no photos, right?
This case opens up some interesting questions about what privacy is and what expectations people have for privacy.
We all know if the government was doing this a whole lot more people would be complaining. They could blame it on crappy use of MY tax dollars, but that wouldn't be the case entirely. It's partly because of the power differential between the government and the individual, which currently SEEMS to most people to be in favor of the government.
What if it's a great big "do no evil" corporation doing it? Not as scary or weird, right? What if it was Raytheon or Halburton? Scarier, etc. What is the stated purpose? How can the information be misused?
I think these are all interesting questions, and I don't think it's as black or white as my house isn't invisible or have a sign on it that says no pictures.
I still have an 80MB (that's megabyte) Quantum Fireball SCSI drive. It's been running almost every day since 1990 in an Amiga 2500/030. It doesn't do a lot these days, just shows a slideshow, but for a long time I had three of these running a BBS, you know, with modems and a bulletin board and "warez".
The other two were sold off and I had two full-height 5.25" 1.2GB seagate drives for a while, etc, etc.
That taxpayer-paid-for page says that as of 2006 there were 126,316,181 "housing units" in the US. The ownership rate in 2000 was 66.2%, so perhaps that was higher in 2006 with all these craptastic loans. So maybe um 75%?
That would make 94,737,136 homes.
So, if 1 in 100 were in some kind of foreclosure, that would not be "millions of households" BUT if every single one of those households have an average of 4.2 people in them (two adults plus the requisite 2.2 kids (doubtful)) then you might be looking at "millions of people."
HOWEVER, a vast quantity of these craptastic loans were given to people that were trying to make.money.fast in the housing market. So many many of these places being foreclosed upon aren't owner occupied.
I dunno, do the math on that one.
But so what? If they are the owners then they were renters before and couldn't get a loan to make.money.fast, and now they got a craptastic loan because both sides of the deal were greedy, and now the people living in the places have to go back to being renters and the people that gave the loans should have known better so they should eat it.
But of course, it's an election year! That means responsible taxpayers will be paying for all of it. wheee!
Or, it'll be some basic HAL that runs a functional.NET CLR, and version 4.0 of the.NET framework will be the new Windows API. The old binaries will break, but can run hypervisor-style in an older version of the OS, XP-like but with DirectX 10.2. Or something.
I know they love the CLR. And for good reason, with the framework and some of the newer goodies in there, it's pretty darned swell.
Then they will just keep adding functionality and features there, and stay one step ahead of the Mono folks and continue to extract ca$h fromt he marketplace. For "speed-sensitive apps" they'll ask people to port their c++ apps to c++ managed, gotta tie them in to the platform somehow.
And before anyone responds that the C64 had a 6510, yes it did, but the 6510 is just a 6502 with some added features. They were both 8-bit processors with a 16-bit address bus.
Slashdot Mirror
More and more, Texas rocks. They eve have their own power grid, exempt from federal oversight. How long before they break off and become their own nation again?
Too bad about this stuff. Then again, I live here. The way people in NYC talk you'd think Texas was a cesspool and NYC has flower-scented farts. Guess it's not true.
But, I DIGRESS.
Google took millions of pictures and has trespassed more than once, which is documented by the very photos they have taken. That makes them a repeat offender, no? I really don't get why you think Google hasn't done anything wrong.
plus, I typo on the /. like 11 times!
Yes. Translation:
Normal Person: For the last time, I'm pretty sure what's Google's doing is trespassing.
./ know-it-all: But Google's got what nerds crave. It's got street view.
./ user #2: So wait a minute. What you're saying is, you don't think that Google should trespass?
./ user #2: Not even on a 'private road'?
./ know-it-all: But Google's got what nerds crave.
./ user #2: Yeah, it's got street view.
./ user #2: Well, people take pictures of my house, and I don't mind.
./ know-it-all: Hey, that's good! Are you a lawyer or something?!
./ user #2: But Google's GOT what nerds crave.
./ user #3: Yeah. It's got street view.
./ know-it-all: It's what they do at Google.
./ user #2: Cuz Google's got street view.
Normal Person: Yes.
Normal Person: Well, I mean... A private road is a grey area maybe, but definitely not a driveway. But yeah, that's the idea.
Normal Person: Okay, look. The people that live in at least one of these houses are complaining. Google seems to be trespassing. Other people seem to think so, too. So I'm pretty sure that this Google stuff's not working, at least not the way they are currently doing it. Now I'm no technologist, but I do know that if you put yourself on private property, it's called trespassing.
Normal Person: Okay, look. You want to solve this problem, right? So why don't we just try to talk about it, okay, and not worry about what nerds crave?
Normal Person: What ARE the legal implications of driving a van around people's yards to make something called "street view"? Do any of you even know?
Normal Person: Yeah, but WHY do they do this at Google?!
I don't care if you try to have me arrested for stalking. I was trying to point out that you wanted to have your cake and eat it to. Seemed like you were saying Google should be able to take pictures of this guys house from a private road, sure I can do that too but then you'll invoke stalking. Then I took a stand against that. Yeah, that's for the courts (and ultimately your peers) to decide.
I guess I'll go and look at this OTHER article that showed up today, where Google drove right up the driveway. Since we are discussing the minutiae here instead of the big picture ("Do-No-Evil's trespassing, privacy issues etc.") let's agree to disagree.
Taking a picture of my house is fine and not against any law. If you are repeatedly doing the same action for no discernable reason and I perceive that as a threat to me and my family, then yes that does fall under stalking law and I can have you arrested or removed. It's the continual repeated action that elevates it from just taking a picture to harassment. It's got nothing to do with privacy.
I'm taking pictures of your house, not you. And I'm doing it whether you're there or not. From the street. Who are you to tell me not to do it. Maybe my "no discernable reason" is I'm doing an "art project" about the aging of your house. Who are you to get up in my face about stalking? Hell, unlike Google, I'm not even trespassing. Stop with your baseless charges so the courts aren't full of nonsense and can get around to real cases, like whether large corporations have to right to send their agents onto private property, take photographs of what they find there, put them and other information about them into databases, and finding ways to make money from that.
How many tourists in say the Caribbean or Italy take pictures of the interesting houses while there? Should they all get sued? Good luck suing someone in Italy. Or the Caribbean for that matter.So you're ok with just suing Americans in America because it is easier? Either it's a crime or it isn't.
I'm saying a lot of things. First, what is a crime or not a crime is somewhat a function of the geopolitical entity you happen to be standing in. It's a crime to drive if you're a woman in some countries. It isn't here. So yeah, I'm okay with Americans using the court system for its intended purpose and with our laws, sure. One set of those laws deal with trespassing on private property. There's also precedent for devaluing property and some other precedent for mental anguish. It's up for the courts (not you) to decide if they apply here. That's what the courts are for.
I'm also saying much of the Caribbean and Italy pretty much depend on tourists to have a functional economy. Italy hardly has a government half the time, do you think the court system is in working order? Good luck suing a tourist (your example) in either place.
So later when they sue you, they can say you took a specific action to opt into the sharing frenzy. So when you get the cease-and-desist and they turn off your service, they have one more flimsy piece of evidence in their case. Sure maybe this will get overruled eventually, but it can do some damage for a while.
Block traffic from inside machines that are not mail machines TO port 25 on destination machines. If these guys are sending SPAM from your machine then you pretty much have to hit port 25 on the target machines.
If someone is running a mail server on an exposed port other than 25 then they're not getting much mail anyway.
Also, the ISP doesn't necessarily care, they could just look at their 95th percentile graphs and send a larger bill, and cap their max bandwidth so they feel the pain. When the customer calls to complain about the slow connection, hell, sell them antivirus software, services, and seminars.
Maybe I'll drive around in my van up and down your block and take pictures of your house and your neighbors' houses every day. And I can start a website where I post those photos. Just those.
As long as you don't break any laws, then go ahead and waste your time. Although I could probably get you on a stalking charge if you kept it up.
Why is that? I'm doing it every day whether you are there or not, and so it's systematic. I'm not harassing you, after all your house is there, it's not underground or invisible, and doesn't have a sign on it about no photos. Why stalking? Stalking your house? Or does it make you feel like your privacy is being invaded so you invoke this stalking thing that doesn't really apply?
Maybe you have less privacy "needs" than the dude in this house, but it sounds like you still have some, or why would you think to try to "get" me on stalking charges?
How many tourists in say the Caribbean or Italy take pictures of the interesting houses while there? Should they all get sued?
Good luck suing someone in Italy. Or the Caribbean for that matter.
Wait. What is this "outside of the US" of which you speak?
And if a nefarious individual trespasses on your property, and is dumb enough to take photos of their trespass and post it on a website, you'd be giving them a Darwin award for stupidity. But Google gets off the hook, yet that's essentially what they've done.
You do? Do the people that live in that house? I mean it's way back off the street on a PRIVATE ROAD with a bunch of trees around it. They don't seem like they have that expectation. Not everyone thinks the same thoughts, or does the same things. Status is different to different people.
Maybe I'll drive around in my van up and down your block and take pictures of your house and your neighbors' houses every day. And I can start a website where I post those photos. Just those.
Your house isn't invisible, underground, and it doesn't have a sign on it saying no photos, right?
This case opens up some interesting questions about what privacy is and what expectations people have for privacy.
We all know if the government was doing this a whole lot more people would be complaining. They could blame it on crappy use of MY tax dollars, but that wouldn't be the case entirely. It's partly because of the power differential between the government and the individual, which currently SEEMS to most people to be in favor of the government.
What if it's a great big "do no evil" corporation doing it? Not as scary or weird, right? What if it was Raytheon or Halburton? Scarier, etc. What is the stated purpose? How can the information be misused?
I think these are all interesting questions, and I don't think it's as black or white as my house isn't invisible or have a sign on it that says no pictures.
No bad sectors!
The other two were sold off and I had two full-height 5.25" 1.2GB seagate drives for a while, etc, etc.
But I can see the ad campaign, "Where the cheese go? find out at pizza.com"
That's so 1958. Don't be such a square.
[looks at this page]
That taxpayer-paid-for page says that as of 2006 there were 126,316,181 "housing units" in the US. The ownership rate in 2000 was 66.2%, so perhaps that was higher in 2006 with all these craptastic loans. So maybe um 75%?
That would make 94,737,136 homes.
So, if 1 in 100 were in some kind of foreclosure, that would not be "millions of households" BUT if every single one of those households have an average of 4.2 people in them (two adults plus the requisite 2.2 kids (doubtful)) then you might be looking at "millions of people."
HOWEVER, a vast quantity of these craptastic loans were given to people that were trying to make.money.fast in the housing market. So many many of these places being foreclosed upon aren't owner occupied.
I dunno, do the math on that one.
But so what? If they are the owners then they were renters before and couldn't get a loan to make.money.fast, and now they got a craptastic loan because both sides of the deal were greedy, and now the people living in the places have to go back to being renters and the people that gave the loans should have known better so they should eat it.
But of course, it's an election year! That means responsible taxpayers will be paying for all of it. wheee!
Maybe those 5 guys came up with the pizza.com purchase plan?
anyone want to buy sarcasm.com? that's gotta be worth at least $1mil.
Or, it'll be some basic HAL that runs a functional .NET CLR, and version 4.0 of the .NET framework will be the new Windows API. The old binaries will break, but can run hypervisor-style in an older version of the OS, XP-like but with DirectX 10.2. Or something.
I know they love the CLR. And for good reason, with the framework and some of the newer goodies in there, it's pretty darned swell.
Then they will just keep adding functionality and features there, and stay one step ahead of the Mono folks and continue to extract ca$h fromt he marketplace. For "speed-sensitive apps" they'll ask people to port their c++ apps to c++ managed, gotta tie them in to the platform somehow.
And before anyone responds that the C64 had a 6510, yes it did, but the 6510 is just a 6502 with some added features. They were both 8-bit processors with a 16-bit address bus.