Since you're inviting a busload of people to your residence, you need to worry about more than simple theft. You need to worry about liability issues.
What if someone trips and falls down the stairs after catching their foot on that torn piece of carpet you haven't replaced? What if someone lights a cigarette in the kitchen and sets off an explosion thanks to that little gas leak you didn't know you had?
Most people with homeowners or renters insurance have some amount of liability coverage. If you don't, get it. Stuff happens. Do you want to be at the mercy of UPS when their driver slips on your front steps, breaks her leg, and UPS proves you were violating several local building regulations?
As for the LAN party, you might try getting each attendee to sign a statement releasing you of liability for the loss of their hardware. Yes, it pretty much says "You can come to my party if you promise not to sue me," but there you go.
Remember, the value of such releases and even of insurance is not so much to protect you financially in case of a suit, but to ward off suits in the first place. Fighting a lawsuit is expensive and time-consuming even if you win.
Yeah, I know. I bought one two weeks before the Intel switch announcement.
I'm not concerned about 4 years from now. In 4 years, everything will be 4 years older.
If I could put Linux on this machine, I would, and spend the two grand taking a trip. Would be money better spent.
But, one of the sales points for Linux has always been its ability to run on abandoned platforms. Seems the Linux folks don't want to be bothered with anything but Intel chips these days.
Also, when I bought the thing, the Ubuntu crowd was pledging to the world that they'd always support these machines. Then, they decided they wouldn't.
No, my point was this: Why should anyone care if people like you want to tee off on issues like this as political fodder?
"Native American" is fairly and appropriately applied to the peoples and cultures who dominated the Americas before the arrival of Europeans who decided to call themselves Americans after they had taken both continents from the previous residents. Whether those residents were literally the first inhabitants is an issue of no importance.(Unless you are a literalist or someone looking for political ammo.)
By your, umm, logic, hardly anyone on the planet merits a description as a native resident. Unless you live somewhere near the Olduvai Gorge, your ancestors went walkabout.
The word "native" is typically applied to people who appear to be the first, i.e., original, inhabitants of a territory. Today's Indians are descendants of the first people to successfully settle in the Americas. How those folks got here is irrelevant.
Ah yes, I've so enjoyed the amazingly efficient and terribly polite service I get from from that outstanding example of free enterprise, my cable company.
Then, how 'bout them airline companies, eh?
You are allowing your ideology to shut off your critical faculties.
The profit motive is no guarantee of competence.
As the Post article notes, the paperwork involved here is apparently quite complicated, leading to errors. I'd suggest that this be the first avenue of investiagtion.
The Navajo Nation is larger than a considerable number of states. It is sparsely populated. Many (most?) residences do not have landline telephone service, i.e., there is no landline for them to access. Wouldn't it be necessary to run cable to each of these homes and businesses and schools?
But, if you identify the person who posted those remarks, they aren't anonymous. Why should the fact that software allows you to enter a phony name shield you from the legal repercussions of what he wrote?
I did not say I "won't believe a sign." In fact, I haven't said much at all about what I do believe, other than I don't care who wins this case.
I've only listed some ways that I think Google might be able to demonstrate that the claim the road is private property might be weakened. Among those is the fact that the mere posting of a sign asserting that a road is private does not, in fact, make that road private. There is no cause-and-effect relationship between the presence of a sign installed by an individual and the status of the road.
This differs dramatically from a "No Parking" sign erected by a governing body to enforce local law.
Try again. I can legally photograph private property as long as I'm standing on public property. What I do subsequently with the photo is not relevant.
My argument is that the presence of the sign alone may not be sufficient to establish that the road is, in fact, private property. As I've already said, I don't care who wins this case.
All Google had to go on was a sign that said "Private Road". By itself, that sign does not make that road private property. It is not proof that the road is not public.
And, once more, the owners will need to demonstrate that the road is, in fact, their private property, and that their privacy claim has not been eroded by anything to that place the road in the public arena, including permitting access by other members of the public or by accepting direct or indirect public resources due to the road's existence.
The presence of a sign that says "Private Road" does not, by itself, mean that the road is, in fact, private.
It seems likely that courts have ruled on similar cases in the past. Perhaps one of the things they have considered is the extent to which such a sign, by itself, conveys a legally enforceable "stay out" order.
Again, if Google can demonstrate that the owners have allowed other members of the public to use the road, i.e., have failed to thwart all public access, then Google can argue that the road is something other than completely private.
For Google's purpose, the best case might be to locate someone who drove down the road and photographed the house, and was not subject to a suit,
The right to photograph private property from a public location is clearly established. Google only needs to establish that a right to public access to that road exists. To the degree that Google can demonstrate that the road's owners were less than perfect in their enforcement of their privacy, then Google can claim that their privacy right has been eroded.
As I've said elsewhere, I'm unwilling to accept that a sign reading "Private Road" by itself has any legal authority. A sign is simply a sign.
The right to sue over an alleged privacy invasion does not mean the invasion actually took place.
Personally, i don't know and don't care who will win this suit. But, I do think that Google's case will be strengthened if it can demonstrate that the owners of this "private road" have been lax in enforcing their privacy. If Google can show that at least one other vehicle drove down that road without permission, then why should the owners single out Google for legal action?
In addition, does the law interpret a sign reading "Private Road" to mean "No Trespassing" or "Permission Required to Enter"? I don't know, but clearly those three phrases have three different meanings.
Finally, if the owners wanted to guarantee their privacy, why did they not erect a locked gate across the road? Could it be because the law does not allow them to do that?
Slashdot Mirror
Since you're inviting a busload of people to your residence, you need to worry about more than simple theft. You need to worry about liability issues.
What if someone trips and falls down the stairs after catching their foot on that torn piece of carpet you haven't replaced? What if someone lights a cigarette in the kitchen and sets off an explosion thanks to that little gas leak you didn't know you had?
Most people with homeowners or renters insurance have some amount of liability coverage. If you don't, get it. Stuff happens. Do you want to be at the mercy of UPS when their driver slips on your front steps, breaks her leg, and UPS proves you were violating several local building regulations?
As for the LAN party, you might try getting each attendee to sign a statement releasing you of liability for the loss of their hardware. Yes, it pretty much says "You can come to my party if you promise not to sue me," but there you go.
Remember, the value of such releases and even of insurance is not so much to protect you financially in case of a suit, but to ward off suits in the first place. Fighting a lawsuit is expensive and time-consuming even if you win.
Yeah, I know. I bought one two weeks before the Intel switch announcement.
I'm not concerned about 4 years from now. In 4 years, everything will be 4 years older.
If I could put Linux on this machine, I would, and spend the two grand taking a trip. Would be money better spent.
But, one of the sales points for Linux has always been its ability to run on abandoned platforms. Seems the Linux folks don't want to be bothered with anything but Intel chips these days.
Also, when I bought the thing, the Ubuntu crowd was pledging to the world that they'd always support these machines. Then, they decided they wouldn't.
Working, with sound and video, on a late-model iMac G5? That would be nice. Might save me a few grand.
The cloud didn't go away. One company did.
I use an online storage facility, but I do not store irreplaceable or unique copies of anything there. At best, it's tertiary storage.
Make multiple copies. Stash them in multiple places. The odds of all of them vanishing are almost nil.
And think about what you're trying to protect. Don't be a packrat. Don't waste time and money backing up something you haven't used or seen in years.
Eh?
This is exactly what needs to be done: Provide more speed.
Combine that with a cheap and reliable way to get to LEO and you have the beginnings of a real exploration of the Solar System.
No, my point was this: Why should anyone care if people like you want to tee off on issues like this as political fodder?
"Native American" is fairly and appropriately applied to the peoples and cultures who dominated the Americas before the arrival of Europeans who decided to call themselves Americans after they had taken both continents from the previous residents. Whether those residents were literally the first inhabitants is an issue of no importance.(Unless you are a literalist or someone looking for political ammo.)
>>"It matters because there is evidence showing that the natives arrived in waves..."
Why does that matter at all, in any conceivable manner?
Again, by your logic, the first female across the strait who gave birth has a right to be called "native", and no one else.
People have a right to call themselves whatever they wish. In the end, names are only words and have nothing to do with reality.
By your, umm, logic, hardly anyone on the planet merits a description as a native resident. Unless you live somewhere near the Olduvai Gorge, your ancestors went walkabout.
The word "native" is typically applied to people who appear to be the first, i.e., original, inhabitants of a territory. Today's Indians are descendants of the first people to successfully settle in the Americas. How those folks got here is irrelevant.
Ah yes, I've so enjoyed the amazingly efficient and terribly polite service I get from from that outstanding example of free enterprise, my cable company.
Then, how 'bout them airline companies, eh?
You are allowing your ideology to shut off your critical faculties.
The profit motive is no guarantee of competence.
As the Post article notes, the paperwork involved here is apparently quite complicated, leading to errors. I'd suggest that this be the first avenue of investiagtion.
The Navajo Nation is larger than a considerable number of states. It is sparsely populated. Many (most?) residences do not have landline telephone service, i.e., there is no landline for them to access. Wouldn't it be necessary to run cable to each of these homes and businesses and schools?
... on the Republicans a long time ago.
Nuts. Speech has more impact than any other behavior. If you disagree, let me send email to the next person who's looking at your resume
But, if you identify the person who posted those remarks, they aren't anonymous. Why should the fact that software allows you to enter a phony name shield you from the legal repercussions of what he wrote?
What's controversial here? People are being held accountable for the things they say. What's wrong with that?
The ability to attempt to disguise your real identity -- as most of us do here --- in no way absolves us of responsibility.
I did not say I "won't believe a sign." In fact, I haven't said much at all about what I do believe, other than I don't care who wins this case.
I've only listed some ways that I think Google might be able to demonstrate that the claim the road is private property might be weakened. Among those is the fact that the mere posting of a sign asserting that a road is private does not, in fact, make that road private. There is no cause-and-effect relationship between the presence of a sign installed by an individual and the status of the road.
This differs dramatically from a "No Parking" sign erected by a governing body to enforce local law.
Try again. I can legally photograph private property as long as I'm standing on public property. What I do subsequently with the photo is not relevant.
How can you tell? The sign is insufficient. I can put up a "Private Road" or "Private Property" sign in front of anything.
My argument is that the presence of the sign alone may not be sufficient to establish that the road is, in fact, private property. As I've already said, I don't care who wins this case.
No. You apparently do not understand the meaning of "public" or "vantage point".
Google's size or profitability have nothing to do with this. The "public domain" differs in almost all aspects from "public property".
All Google had to go on was a sign that said "Private Road". By itself, that sign does not make that road private property. It is not proof that the road is not public.
And, once more, the owners will need to demonstrate that the road is, in fact, their private property, and that their privacy claim has not been eroded by anything to that place the road in the public arena, including permitting access by other members of the public or by accepting direct or indirect public resources due to the road's existence.
The presence of a sign that says "Private Road" does not, by itself, mean that the road is, in fact, private.
It seems likely that courts have ruled on similar cases in the past. Perhaps one of the things they have considered is the extent to which such a sign, by itself, conveys a legally enforceable "stay out" order.
Again, if Google can demonstrate that the owners have allowed other members of the public to use the road, i.e., have failed to thwart all public access, then Google can argue that the road is something other than completely private.
For Google's purpose, the best case might be to locate someone who drove down the road and photographed the house, and was not subject to a suit,
>>"The sign informs Google that they are not on public property."
Does it, really? Why should I believe it?
As I've said, Google needs to establish that the owners have been less than perfect in enforcing their alleged privacy right.
The right to photograph private property from a public location is clearly established. Google only needs to establish that a right to public access to that road exists. To the degree that Google can demonstrate that the road's owners were less than perfect in their enforcement of their privacy, then Google can claim that their privacy right has been eroded.
As I've said elsewhere, I'm unwilling to accept that a sign reading "Private Road" by itself has any legal authority. A sign is simply a sign.
The right to sue over an alleged privacy invasion does not mean the invasion actually took place.
Personally, i don't know and don't care who will win this suit. But, I do think that Google's case will be strengthened if it can demonstrate that the owners of this "private road" have been lax in enforcing their privacy. If Google can show that at least one other vehicle drove down that road without permission, then why should the owners single out Google for legal action?
In addition, does the law interpret a sign reading "Private Road" to mean "No Trespassing" or "Permission Required to Enter"? I don't know, but clearly those three phrases have three different meanings.
Finally, if the owners wanted to guarantee their privacy, why did they not erect a locked gate across the road? Could it be because the law does not allow them to do that?