If that ladder is on your property then it's not allowed. If the ladder is elsewhere then it's fine. If your door is open then anyone can look in to see provided they don't step on your property.
You're talking about defamation etc if they circulate pictures saying "whore", "bitch" etc. Not stalking.
Personally if someone calls me 20 times I'll just block the number. If they try from another one and keep intruding, I can get them for harassment. Because I'm actually inconvenienced, I have to answer the phone etc. But if there is zero impact on my life, then there's simply no case to be made for stalking.
Even if you aren't overtly threatened, the implicit danger of violence is also enough to register a case of stalking. But if there is literally never any possibility of your life being affected in any way, I doubt if you'll have a case.
Except that you can't just make up your own classifications. If you're in public, you have no expectation of privacy. Zero. You might wish it to be different, but that doesn't change anything.
Underlying the concept of stalking is the danger of physical danger at least on some level. You cannot be stalked by a toddler. Stalking and recording via google glass are two completely different things. No threat of physical violence = ok.
I have a phobia about spending money. So no matter how low it is, I don't like to pay anything...Also, since the site needs its visitors to keep coming back, they will definitely take care of the visitor's needs.
I would much rather pay by seeing ads instead of paying actual cash. Websites are free to advertise to me as much as they want. If I don't like the ads, I stop using them. There's no need for browsers to protect me.
So when they actually do something, that is the time to catch them. Basic principle of justice - you can't punish someone for something they haven't done yet.
So you're assuming that Amazon will raise prices later on? And you're willing to punish a company on the basis of what it might do in the future? Also, the pricing of an ebook can be just above zero and still cover marginal production costs.
Also, I'm 30 years old. But nice way to bring in an ad hominem.
Except that for ebooks, there is no "artificially" low price. You can sell it for a few cents and it'll still be enough to cover the marginal costs of producing a new one.
No one can predict the future. You can't automatically assume that Amazon will raise prices later on...that's like punishing someone for a crime they haven't even committed yet.
So wait....they're complaining that this "monopoly" is keeping the prices high or low? If it's keeping the high, I don't see how other retailers can be driven out of business. If it's keeping prices low...then it's good for the customer!
I thought anti monopoly laws were meant to protect consumers and not competition as the recent dropping of the probe against Google showed.
Slashdot Mirror
Yawn...Wake me up when the government forces you to wear these things.
People will most likely use this to spy on their governments. That's a massive benefit compared to the recording of public videos of whoever.
Because they totally give a shit.
That nation is free to block the website if they way.
Otherwise, as mentioned above, said country can go fuck itself.
No biggie. The developer can just offer it for download on their site like Adblock is doing after Google kicked them from their Play store.
Oh wait...
If that ladder is on your property then it's not allowed. If the ladder is elsewhere then it's fine.
If your door is open then anyone can look in to see provided they don't step on your property.
Now who's talking about physical violence? :D
Looks like people who think they're being stalked need to be restrained more than those recording stuff...
You're talking about defamation etc if they circulate pictures saying "whore", "bitch" etc. Not stalking.
Personally if someone calls me 20 times I'll just block the number. If they try from another one and keep intruding, I can get them for harassment. Because I'm actually inconvenienced, I have to answer the phone etc. But if there is zero impact on my life, then there's simply no case to be made for stalking.
Even if you aren't overtly threatened, the implicit danger of violence is also enough to register a case of stalking. But if there is literally never any possibility of your life being affected in any way, I doubt if you'll have a case.
If adverts are ruining it, don't visit that site - problem solved!
How exactly can you be upset about being recorded in public? Do you understand what "public" means?
Except that you can't just make up your own classifications. If you're in public, you have no expectation of privacy. Zero. You might wish it to be different, but that doesn't change anything.
Underlying the concept of stalking is the danger of physical danger at least on some level. You cannot be stalked by a toddler. Stalking and recording via google glass are two completely different things. No threat of physical violence = ok.
Flawed how? I will gladly see ads in order to get free access to a site.
So...you'll get your connection from what? AT&T? And you find a telecom company more trustworthy than Google?
If people really find the postal system so useful they should be willing to pay more for it. This is a solution in search of a problem.
Well you have to install someone's OS. And right now Google is probably the most trustworthy company on the planet.
Neither.
I have a phobia about spending money. So no matter how low it is, I don't like to pay anything...Also, since the site needs its visitors to keep coming back, they will definitely take care of the visitor's needs.
I would much rather pay by seeing ads instead of paying actual cash. Websites are free to advertise to me as much as they want. If I don't like the ads, I stop using them. There's no need for browsers to protect me.
They'll have a tough time proving that digital goods are being sold under cost.
Does it matter? The point is they haven't done anything yet so you can't punish them!
So when they actually do something, that is the time to catch them. Basic principle of justice - you can't punish someone for something they haven't done yet.
So you're assuming that Amazon will raise prices later on? And you're willing to punish a company on the basis of what it might do in the future? Also, the pricing of an ebook can be just above zero and still cover marginal production costs.
Also, I'm 30 years old. But nice way to bring in an ad hominem.
Except that for ebooks, there is no "artificially" low price. You can sell it for a few cents and it'll still be enough to cover the marginal costs of producing a new one.
No one can predict the future. You can't automatically assume that Amazon will raise prices later on...that's like punishing someone for a crime they haven't even committed yet.
So wait....they're complaining that this "monopoly" is keeping the prices high or low? If it's keeping the high, I don't see how other retailers can be driven out of business. If it's keeping prices low...then it's good for the customer!
I thought anti monopoly laws were meant to protect consumers and not competition as the recent dropping of the probe against Google showed.