The one problem that I see with this comparison is this:
If I monkey around with my PC and wreck it, it costs under $1,000 to replace. If I monkey around with my car and wreck it, it can cost me over $15,000 to replace.
Plus, worst case scenario, I monkey with my PC and wreck it, but not in an obvious "won't even boot" sort of way. Two weeks later it crashes. Data might be lost, but no one's hurt. Same thing happens with my car and people (including me and anyone in my car at the time) can be killed.
I'm not saying it's impossible to do. I know that a lot of people can fix cars themselves. I'm just saying that it takes more skill (and willingness to pay replacement costs while you learn) to fix a car than it does to fix a computer.
Not really. She ate pretty much the same. Of course, some of the caloric intake of her food went to feed the embryo so she was left with fewer calories for herself. We actually started eating better after our first son turned two and we realized that our eating choices would affect how he ate thoughout his life.
Hey, we married people still do it. Even those of us (like me) with a kid or two. We just tend to do it less often than couple who are just starting to "explore each other." We still do it a lot more than the stereotypical "living in the parents' basement" Slashdotter.;-) Married Slashdotters unite!
My wife, in fact, lost weight when she was pregnant with our first child. After the baby was born, she was 10 pounds lighter than she was before she got pregnant.
We've been buying canvas bags to use in grocery stores. We don't need to worry about the paper/plastic decision, stores will often give a small discount if you use your own bags (not giving you a bag saves them money), we can reuse them a lot more than paper/plastic and it is the best option for the environment. Most supermarkets around here carry canvas bags that aren't too pricey ($1-$2 per bag). I wonder if IBM's patent includes this option.
It wouldn't surprise me to hear of some Indie labels being ahead of the curve and acting like this already. I should have been clearer and specified that the large, major record labels wouldn't be scaling back their operations into a more "book publisher"-like role anytime soon.
I was thinking about this the other day and realized just who the record labels should model their new business after: Book publishers. A book publisher helps an author move a book concept onto store shelves. Publishers take a piece of the sales, but don't own the copyright on the works. If JK Rowling is unhappy with her publisher, she can take Harry Potter to another one at virtually any time. (Contracts might bind her to a publisher for awhile, but the publisher doesn't own the copyright. So JK can sue to break the contract, but doesn't need to worry about losing ownership of her works.) Contrast this with the music world where an artist switching labels loses all of their old songs.
Of course, doing something like this would be a large loss of power and control for the record labels, so I'm expecting to see anything like this anytime soon.
rulers more interested in retaining power than the general welfare
This is a big part of the problem. The rulers treat their citizens like garbage, but don't want an uprising on their hands so they need a scapegoat. Enter Israel. The government whips up a frenzy of hate against the scapegoat and the anger is diverted away from them. In some ways, the rulers of those lands don't want to see Israel disappear because then the populace might turn their attention to their rulers. (To quote The Joker from The Dark Knight: "Kill you? I don't want to kill you! What would I do without you?")
Of course, the rulers have lately found that the whipped up populace had a little problem. You see, they formed these groups with the purpose of going after Israel, the US, etc. No problem for the rulers. They looked the other way or even encouraged/helped these groups. But then the groups decided that the rulers needed to be replaced with more extremist Muslim rulers. The rulers now can't directly oppose these groups since they have too much power. (Of course, the rulers of these countries aren't the only ones responsible for this state of affairs. We are too for some of our actions. There's plenty of blame to spread around.)
And simply replacing the rulers won't help either. The populace has been indoctrinated over the years to fear/hate Israel/USA/The Jews. I had heard stories of cabbies in Jordan who "knew" that President Clinton was Jewish because, of course, the Jews ran America. There was no doubt in their minds. It was a fact that Jews ran America and so the American President *HAD* to be a Jew. Even if the government started working today to undo that hatred, it would take generations for it to subside. (How many people today still are prejudiced due to skin color in the US forty years after the Civil Rights Act?) At any point, if the people who still hate Israel/USA/The Jews come into power, all progress could be undone. It isn't a problem with a simple answer. How do you stop/reverse mass prejudice and hatred?
There's really very little reason to fear Al-Qaeda at all. You're more likely to die crossing the street, or taking a shower. Maybe that burger you ate last night will be the one to push your cholesterol over the edge. To any rational person, terrorism in the US is simply not on the radar.
I highly agree. Al-Qaeda has killed about 3,000 people on US soil in the past 10 years. That's an average of 300 people a year. Doing some Google research, I found that 300 people a year nationwide die of flight-related blood clots. ( http://www.aviation-health.com/news/browse.php?action=shownews&category=&id=23&topicid=258 ) So you have an equal chance of being killed by a terrorist or by sitting too much on a plane. Yet we don't see a "War on Airplane Blood Clots" complete with mandatory cholesterol screening at airports and confiscation of cheeseburgers by airport security.
Car accidents kill over 42,800 people a year. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Car_accident#Trends_in_collision_statistics ) That's more than one 9-11 per month every year. Do we have a "War on Car Accidents" complete with mandatory breathalyzer testing required every time anyone starts their car and the ability to confiscate a person's car if an officer thinks that the person is being even the slightest bit reckless? Of course not!
Right after 9-11 happened, we had a good reason to be fearful of terrorists above anything else. We were attacked and didn't know the whole story. We didn't know if there would be more attacks and if so who would be next. The only reason people are fearful of terrorists today is because the government has found it to be a useful tool to expand their powers. If the government wants to do something that it knows people will object to, it just cries "Terrorism!" (or "Child Porn!") and it finds the path to additional power smoothed out. Sure, there are still people who oppose them, but it's a lot easier to attack them ("Why do you love the terrorists/child pornographers?") and distract everyone from the real issue of ever expanding government powers and ever shrinking citizen's rights.
I was thinking the exact same thing. There are Christian organizations who think that the US is a Christian nation, our laws should be based on the Christian religion, and anyone who isn't Christian should, at best, be a second class citizen. (They rarely come out and say that last point, but it's implied when you base everything on Christianity that those who don't follow that religion will be at a disadvantage from the start.) Some of these organizations just talk and lobby and they are well within their rights to do so (just as I'm within my rights to oppose them), but some seem to feel that the ends justify the means. So killing doctors who perform abortions is just fine because it is saving lives ("unborn children"). Harassing Jews/Muslims/Atheists into conversion is just fine because otherwise they will go to hell. So long as they are forcing everyone into following (their view of) Christianity, the action is justified.
I think the main difference is that mainstream Christianity has, mostly, shown disapproval of these techniques. Mainstream Islam, until recently, kept quiet which allowed the extremists to thrive and hijack Islam. It is my hope that more and more mainstream Muslims speak out against the extremists so they can be driven back into the fringes where they belong.
Sounds like a good way for DHS officials to get laptops, iPods, etc real cheap.
Step 1: Find someone with a laptop, iPod, etc that you'd like to have. Step 2: Take it in the name of National Security. Step 3: Item "gets lost" and you have a new gadget.
This is especially useful during the holidays. DHS officials can shop on the job. "Hey Frank, didn't you say your kid wanted one of those new iPods? Well look at this guy walking up now."
I wonder what, if any, protections are in place to keep this from being abused. (Any more than giving someone the power to confiscate any item of yours for little to no reason and keep it indefinitely is an abuse of power from the start.)
I never said that Google is included in the short list of folks who can go on private property without permission. If the area was clearly marked private property (a sign not obscured by trees/shrubs) or if common sense would determine that the property is private (a front yard for a house), then Google is in the wrong. If it wasn't, then they can't be expected to know where all private property begins.
The Dead Collector: Bring out yer dead. [a man puts a body on the cart] ISPs: Here's one. The Dead Collector: That'll be ninepence. Usenet: I'm not dead. The Dead Collector: What? ISPs: Nothing. There's your ninepence. Usenet: I'm not dead. The Dead Collector: 'Ere, he says he's not dead. ISPs: Yes he is. Usenet: I'm not. The Dead Collector: He isn't. ISPs: Well, he will be soon, he's very ill. Usenet: I'm getting better. ISPs: No you're not, you'll be stone dead in a moment. The Dead Collector: Well, I can't take him like that. It's against regulations. Usenet: I don't want to go on the cart. ISPs: Oh, don't be such a baby. The Dead Collector: I can't take him. Usenet: I feel fine. ISPs: Oh, do me a favor. The Dead Collector: I can't. ISPs: Well, can you hang around for a couple of minutes? He won't be long. The Dead Collector: I promised I'd be at the Robinsons'. They've lost nine today. ISPs: Well, when's your next round? The Dead Collector: Thursday. Usenet: I think I'll go for a walk. ISPs: You're not fooling anyone, you know. Isn't there anything you could do? Usenet: I feel happy. I feel happy. [the Dead Collector glances up and down the street furtively, then silences Usenet with his a whack of his club] ISPs: Ah, thank you very much. The Dead Collector: Not at all. See you on Thursday. ISPs: Right.
the nerve of people getting on a system, where every computer is a peer, and can publish their thoughts willy-nilly and interconnect in ways not expressedly sanctioned by our government officials that obviously know what's better and safer for us.
It's not just the government who would love to restrict our speech, but corporations as well. Imagine if the Internet had built in systems to keep people from saying anything negative about MegaCorporation X. Imagine if the Internet's basic systems kept you from posting music online that you wrote, performed, and owned the copyrights to because the Recording Industry wanted to control all online music. Imagine if the Internet were turned into "TV 2.0" where you were able to watch what the big companies put out and interact the way they said you could. (Of course, small players are allowed in. All they would need to do is pony up the huge entrance fees. Can't afford it? Too bad.)
Let's take this a step further: Most phones already have photo/video capabilities along with the ability to instantly send that photo/video to someone else as a message. Suppose someone sets up a service where you can send your photos/videos via TXT/Picture message and have them automatically be posted online. Twitter meets YouTube. So you and ten friends come upon a scene and video it. As someone walks over to stop you, a few of you stop recording and "TwitTube" the videos. Now, even if your phones are smashed to bits, the video is still out there.
There's already a service that is halfway there. Twitpics will let you post a photo from your cell phone to their online service. It shouldn't be impossible to expand that service to videos. It might be tricky given the multiple codecs/formats involved, but not impossible.
If you are on public property, then the officers would have no basis to demand you turn over your camera. They could request a warrant from a judge which, if approved, would compel you to give it up, but they would have no legal standing to demand you give up the camera or destroy the photos/video right then and there. In fact, it would be highly illegal of them to do so.
Yes, they could jail you for 24 hours and seize your camera while they get a warrant, but they can't tamper with it at all (no deletion of photos) until they get that warrant. And if they don't get the warrant and the camera goes missing/is damaged or if the photos/video is missing, you would have a great case against the police department for destruction of property.
I keep a printed copy in my camera bag in case I ever encounter an overzealous police officer or security guard. (I wouldn't be rude about it, but would politely refer to the sheet detailing what my rights are.)
I'm not sure where the easement would be except on my driveway. You can't reach those poles unless you walk on my driveway. In any case, we didn't mind the utility workers going there. What we did mind was the lack of courtesy that they displayed. My wife was home with the kids and all of a sudden hears men in our driveway. They could have noticed her car in the driveway and rang the doorbell to inform her that they would be doing some work. This way she wouldn't have been spooked by strange men on our property.
I'm pretty sure the post office steps on private property every time they go up on my porch to deliver a letter. The same with Fedex, UPS, tax appraiser and utility workers.
With FedEx and UPS, there's an assumption of permission. You have a package to deliver to me, therefore they can walk up to my front door to deliver it. You cannot, however, walk around my property taking photos of my house or walk into my backyard. Tax appraisers work for the government and thus get a bit more leeway than your normal person. And utility workers can go on your property for purpose of servicing your (or someone else's) utility service. This is typically on the front portion of your front yard (which is technically not yours, but owned by the local government specifically for utility purposes). My house, however, has utility poles in my backyard and we've more than once seen utility workers walk down our driveway and behind our garage to get up the poles.
So, yes, there are exceptions, but that doesn't mean that Joe Random Individual can walk up my driveway to take photos of my backyard.
I did read the article and it doesn't say anything about suing for trespassing.
The couple are suing Google for US$25,000 in damages, saying that the value of their property has been damaged and say they have suffered "mental stress".
I'm guessing that they figured that a trespassing lawsuit wouldn't pay as much as "lowered property values" and "mental stress" so they went with the latter. I don't see how a simple Google Street View image lowers your property values. Beside, Google has a clear method for removing the images. They should have contacted Google and asked for those images to be taken down. If Google didn't comply in a reasonable amount of time, then you could sue for something other than the initial trespassing.
Of course, a guilty verdict on a hypothetical trespassing charge would rely on other factors like visible signs marking the property as private. If the only sign is obscured by a bush, then the Google van can't be faulted for not knowing that it was a private road. If there are multiple easily viewed signs, then Google is at fault.
Re:ah, for a moon landing flame war...
on
NASA Turns 50
·
· Score: 1
Of course we went to the moon. They were going to fake it in Area 51, but then that spaceship crashed. So President Truman told his generals that: "we'll have to really land on the moon. Invent NASA and tell them to get off their fannies."
I'll admit that I don't stick to a routine as much as I should, but I have three things to help me exercise:
1 - a small pedal machine stashed under my desk. While at work, I can pedal away turning a completely sedentary activity into one that burns some calories. 2 - WiiFit. Yes, this is actually a good workout. (Though lately I've been distracted by a borrowed copy of Super Mario Galaxy.) You might want to get some wrist/leg weights to improve the workout. 3 - Two small children. You'd be surprised how active a nearly-5 year old and a 1 year old can keep you. Between running around while playing with them, lifting them up, or running to keep them out of trouble, they never fail to give me a good workout.
Like jeiler said, downloading might be illegal. I think that the original Napster decision stated that the courts saw downloading a copyrighted work without the copyright holder's permission was infringement. The problem, however, is that the recording industry can't prosecute downloaders. They would need detailed log files from the ISPs (highly unlikely) and would need to sift through the data before identifying downloaders. Once a downloader was spotted, they could file their usual John Doe lawsuit, but it might only be for one file. Filling the courts up with a thousand cases detailing one or two infringements each would quickly turn judges against them (and would be quite costly). They could sift through the data more and try to identify people who have downloaded many files, but that would be difficult since IP addresses can change. So the recording industry's strategy has been to take out the uploaders figuring that, once the uploaders are gone, the downloaders won't have anyone to download from.
So while downloading *might* be illegal, you won't get sued for it.
As for the book/bookstore question, you aren't guilty of copyright infringement if you go to a bookstore, buy what you think is a legitimate copy of a book, and then realize it is a fake. However, if you stop at a street corner stand tomorrow and buy a DVD copy of The Dark Knight you would be guilty of copyright infringement (since there's no way you could realistically have thought that it was a legitimate copy.)
Slashdot Mirror
The one problem that I see with this comparison is this:
If I monkey around with my PC and wreck it, it costs under $1,000 to replace.
If I monkey around with my car and wreck it, it can cost me over $15,000 to replace.
Plus, worst case scenario, I monkey with my PC and wreck it, but not in an obvious "won't even boot" sort of way. Two weeks later it crashes. Data might be lost, but no one's hurt. Same thing happens with my car and people (including me and anyone in my car at the time) can be killed.
I'm not saying it's impossible to do. I know that a lot of people can fix cars themselves. I'm just saying that it takes more skill (and willingness to pay replacement costs while you learn) to fix a car than it does to fix a computer.
Not really. She ate pretty much the same. Of course, some of the caloric intake of her food went to feed the embryo so she was left with fewer calories for herself. We actually started eating better after our first son turned two and we realized that our eating choices would affect how he ate thoughout his life.
Hey, we married people still do it. Even those of us (like me) with a kid or two. We just tend to do it less often than couple who are just starting to "explore each other." We still do it a lot more than the stereotypical "living in the parents' basement" Slashdotter. ;-) Married Slashdotters unite!
My wife, in fact, lost weight when she was pregnant with our first child. After the baby was born, she was 10 pounds lighter than she was before she got pregnant.
We've been buying canvas bags to use in grocery stores. We don't need to worry about the paper/plastic decision, stores will often give a small discount if you use your own bags (not giving you a bag saves them money), we can reuse them a lot more than paper/plastic and it is the best option for the environment. Most supermarkets around here carry canvas bags that aren't too pricey ($1-$2 per bag). I wonder if IBM's patent includes this option.
It wouldn't surprise me to hear of some Indie labels being ahead of the curve and acting like this already. I should have been clearer and specified that the large, major record labels wouldn't be scaling back their operations into a more "book publisher"-like role anytime soon.
I was thinking about this the other day and realized just who the record labels should model their new business after: Book publishers. A book publisher helps an author move a book concept onto store shelves. Publishers take a piece of the sales, but don't own the copyright on the works. If JK Rowling is unhappy with her publisher, she can take Harry Potter to another one at virtually any time. (Contracts might bind her to a publisher for awhile, but the publisher doesn't own the copyright. So JK can sue to break the contract, but doesn't need to worry about losing ownership of her works.) Contrast this with the music world where an artist switching labels loses all of their old songs.
Of course, doing something like this would be a large loss of power and control for the record labels, so I'm expecting to see anything like this anytime soon.
This is a big part of the problem. The rulers treat their citizens like garbage, but don't want an uprising on their hands so they need a scapegoat. Enter Israel. The government whips up a frenzy of hate against the scapegoat and the anger is diverted away from them. In some ways, the rulers of those lands don't want to see Israel disappear because then the populace might turn their attention to their rulers. (To quote The Joker from The Dark Knight: "Kill you? I don't want to kill you! What would I do without you?")
Of course, the rulers have lately found that the whipped up populace had a little problem. You see, they formed these groups with the purpose of going after Israel, the US, etc. No problem for the rulers. They looked the other way or even encouraged/helped these groups. But then the groups decided that the rulers needed to be replaced with more extremist Muslim rulers. The rulers now can't directly oppose these groups since they have too much power. (Of course, the rulers of these countries aren't the only ones responsible for this state of affairs. We are too for some of our actions. There's plenty of blame to spread around.)
And simply replacing the rulers won't help either. The populace has been indoctrinated over the years to fear/hate Israel/USA/The Jews. I had heard stories of cabbies in Jordan who "knew" that President Clinton was Jewish because, of course, the Jews ran America. There was no doubt in their minds. It was a fact that Jews ran America and so the American President *HAD* to be a Jew. Even if the government started working today to undo that hatred, it would take generations for it to subside. (How many people today still are prejudiced due to skin color in the US forty years after the Civil Rights Act?) At any point, if the people who still hate Israel/USA/The Jews come into power, all progress could be undone. It isn't a problem with a simple answer. How do you stop/reverse mass prejudice and hatred?
I highly agree. Al-Qaeda has killed about 3,000 people on US soil in the past 10 years. That's an average of 300 people a year. Doing some Google research, I found that 300 people a year nationwide die of flight-related blood clots. ( http://www.aviation-health.com/news/browse.php?action=shownews&category=&id=23&topicid=258 ) So you have an equal chance of being killed by a terrorist or by sitting too much on a plane. Yet we don't see a "War on Airplane Blood Clots" complete with mandatory cholesterol screening at airports and confiscation of cheeseburgers by airport security.
Car accidents kill over 42,800 people a year. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Car_accident#Trends_in_collision_statistics ) That's more than one 9-11 per month every year. Do we have a "War on Car Accidents" complete with mandatory breathalyzer testing required every time anyone starts their car and the ability to confiscate a person's car if an officer thinks that the person is being even the slightest bit reckless? Of course not!
Right after 9-11 happened, we had a good reason to be fearful of terrorists above anything else. We were attacked and didn't know the whole story. We didn't know if there would be more attacks and if so who would be next. The only reason people are fearful of terrorists today is because the government has found it to be a useful tool to expand their powers. If the government wants to do something that it knows people will object to, it just cries "Terrorism!" (or "Child Porn!") and it finds the path to additional power smoothed out. Sure, there are still people who oppose them, but it's a lot easier to attack them ("Why do you love the terrorists/child pornographers?") and distract everyone from the real issue of ever expanding government powers and ever shrinking citizen's rights.
I was thinking the exact same thing. There are Christian organizations who think that the US is a Christian nation, our laws should be based on the Christian religion, and anyone who isn't Christian should, at best, be a second class citizen. (They rarely come out and say that last point, but it's implied when you base everything on Christianity that those who don't follow that religion will be at a disadvantage from the start.) Some of these organizations just talk and lobby and they are well within their rights to do so (just as I'm within my rights to oppose them), but some seem to feel that the ends justify the means. So killing doctors who perform abortions is just fine because it is saving lives ("unborn children"). Harassing Jews/Muslims/Atheists into conversion is just fine because otherwise they will go to hell. So long as they are forcing everyone into following (their view of) Christianity, the action is justified.
I think the main difference is that mainstream Christianity has, mostly, shown disapproval of these techniques. Mainstream Islam, until recently, kept quiet which allowed the extremists to thrive and hijack Islam. It is my hope that more and more mainstream Muslims speak out against the extremists so they can be driven back into the fringes where they belong.
Sounds like a good way for DHS officials to get laptops, iPods, etc real cheap.
Step 1: Find someone with a laptop, iPod, etc that you'd like to have.
Step 2: Take it in the name of National Security.
Step 3: Item "gets lost" and you have a new gadget.
This is especially useful during the holidays. DHS officials can shop on the job. "Hey Frank, didn't you say your kid wanted one of those new iPods? Well look at this guy walking up now."
I wonder what, if any, protections are in place to keep this from being abused. (Any more than giving someone the power to confiscate any item of yours for little to no reason and keep it indefinitely is an abuse of power from the start.)
I never said that Google is included in the short list of folks who can go on private property without permission. If the area was clearly marked private property (a sign not obscured by trees/shrubs) or if common sense would determine that the property is private (a front yard for a house), then Google is in the wrong. If it wasn't, then they can't be expected to know where all private property begins.
The Dead Collector: Bring out yer dead.
[a man puts a body on the cart]
ISPs: Here's one.
The Dead Collector: That'll be ninepence.
Usenet: I'm not dead.
The Dead Collector: What?
ISPs: Nothing. There's your ninepence.
Usenet: I'm not dead.
The Dead Collector: 'Ere, he says he's not dead.
ISPs: Yes he is.
Usenet: I'm not.
The Dead Collector: He isn't.
ISPs: Well, he will be soon, he's very ill.
Usenet: I'm getting better.
ISPs: No you're not, you'll be stone dead in a moment.
The Dead Collector: Well, I can't take him like that. It's against regulations.
Usenet: I don't want to go on the cart.
ISPs: Oh, don't be such a baby.
The Dead Collector: I can't take him.
Usenet: I feel fine.
ISPs: Oh, do me a favor.
The Dead Collector: I can't.
ISPs: Well, can you hang around for a couple of minutes? He won't be long.
The Dead Collector: I promised I'd be at the Robinsons'. They've lost nine today.
ISPs: Well, when's your next round?
The Dead Collector: Thursday.
Usenet: I think I'll go for a walk.
ISPs: You're not fooling anyone, you know. Isn't there anything you could do?
Usenet: I feel happy. I feel happy.
[the Dead Collector glances up and down the street furtively, then silences Usenet with his a whack of his club]
ISPs: Ah, thank you very much.
The Dead Collector: Not at all. See you on Thursday.
ISPs: Right.
It's not just the government who would love to restrict our speech, but corporations as well. Imagine if the Internet had built in systems to keep people from saying anything negative about MegaCorporation X. Imagine if the Internet's basic systems kept you from posting music online that you wrote, performed, and owned the copyrights to because the Recording Industry wanted to control all online music. Imagine if the Internet were turned into "TV 2.0" where you were able to watch what the big companies put out and interact the way they said you could. (Of course, small players are allowed in. All they would need to do is pony up the huge entrance fees. Can't afford it? Too bad.)
Let's take this a step further: Most phones already have photo/video capabilities along with the ability to instantly send that photo/video to someone else as a message. Suppose someone sets up a service where you can send your photos/videos via TXT/Picture message and have them automatically be posted online. Twitter meets YouTube. So you and ten friends come upon a scene and video it. As someone walks over to stop you, a few of you stop recording and "TwitTube" the videos. Now, even if your phones are smashed to bits, the video is still out there.
There's already a service that is halfway there. Twitpics will let you post a photo from your cell phone to their online service. It shouldn't be impossible to expand that service to videos. It might be tricky given the multiple codecs/formats involved, but not impossible.
If you are on public property, then the officers would have no basis to demand you turn over your camera. They could request a warrant from a judge which, if approved, would compel you to give it up, but they would have no legal standing to demand you give up the camera or destroy the photos/video right then and there. In fact, it would be highly illegal of them to do so.
Yes, they could jail you for 24 hours and seize your camera while they get a warrant, but they can't tamper with it at all (no deletion of photos) until they get that warrant. And if they don't get the warrant and the camera goes missing/is damaged or if the photos/video is missing, you would have a great case against the police department for destruction of property.
I'd agree with everything you said and would only add the following link for a PDF outlining Photographer's Rights:
http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm
I keep a printed copy in my camera bag in case I ever encounter an overzealous police officer or security guard. (I wouldn't be rude about it, but would politely refer to the sheet detailing what my rights are.)
They're only jealous because we lefties are the only ones in our right minds.
I'm not sure where the easement would be except on my driveway. You can't reach those poles unless you walk on my driveway. In any case, we didn't mind the utility workers going there. What we did mind was the lack of courtesy that they displayed. My wife was home with the kids and all of a sudden hears men in our driveway. They could have noticed her car in the driveway and rang the doorbell to inform her that they would be doing some work. This way she wouldn't have been spooked by strange men on our property.
With FedEx and UPS, there's an assumption of permission. You have a package to deliver to me, therefore they can walk up to my front door to deliver it. You cannot, however, walk around my property taking photos of my house or walk into my backyard. Tax appraisers work for the government and thus get a bit more leeway than your normal person. And utility workers can go on your property for purpose of servicing your (or someone else's) utility service. This is typically on the front portion of your front yard (which is technically not yours, but owned by the local government specifically for utility purposes). My house, however, has utility poles in my backyard and we've more than once seen utility workers walk down our driveway and behind our garage to get up the poles.
So, yes, there are exceptions, but that doesn't mean that Joe Random Individual can walk up my driveway to take photos of my backyard.
I did read the article and it doesn't say anything about suing for trespassing.
I'm guessing that they figured that a trespassing lawsuit wouldn't pay as much as "lowered property values" and "mental stress" so they went with the latter. I don't see how a simple Google Street View image lowers your property values. Beside, Google has a clear method for removing the images. They should have contacted Google and asked for those images to be taken down. If Google didn't comply in a reasonable amount of time, then you could sue for something other than the initial trespassing.
Of course, a guilty verdict on a hypothetical trespassing charge would rely on other factors like visible signs marking the property as private. If the only sign is obscured by a bush, then the Google van can't be faulted for not knowing that it was a private road. If there are multiple easily viewed signs, then Google is at fault.
Of course we went to the moon. They were going to fake it in Area 51, but then that spaceship crashed. So President Truman told his generals that: "we'll have to really land on the moon. Invent NASA and tell them to get off their fannies."
I'll admit that I don't stick to a routine as much as I should, but I have three things to help me exercise:
1 - a small pedal machine stashed under my desk. While at work, I can pedal away turning a completely sedentary activity into one that burns some calories.
2 - WiiFit. Yes, this is actually a good workout. (Though lately I've been distracted by a borrowed copy of Super Mario Galaxy.) You might want to get some wrist/leg weights to improve the workout.
3 - Two small children. You'd be surprised how active a nearly-5 year old and a 1 year old can keep you. Between running around while playing with them, lifting them up, or running to keep them out of trouble, they never fail to give me a good workout.
But what happens if you're married? With two children? What do you do then?
Like jeiler said, downloading might be illegal. I think that the original Napster decision stated that the courts saw downloading a copyrighted work without the copyright holder's permission was infringement. The problem, however, is that the recording industry can't prosecute downloaders. They would need detailed log files from the ISPs (highly unlikely) and would need to sift through the data before identifying downloaders. Once a downloader was spotted, they could file their usual John Doe lawsuit, but it might only be for one file. Filling the courts up with a thousand cases detailing one or two infringements each would quickly turn judges against them (and would be quite costly). They could sift through the data more and try to identify people who have downloaded many files, but that would be difficult since IP addresses can change. So the recording industry's strategy has been to take out the uploaders figuring that, once the uploaders are gone, the downloaders won't have anyone to download from.
So while downloading *might* be illegal, you won't get sued for it.
As for the book/bookstore question, you aren't guilty of copyright infringement if you go to a bookstore, buy what you think is a legitimate copy of a book, and then realize it is a fake. However, if you stop at a street corner stand tomorrow and buy a DVD copy of The Dark Knight you would be guilty of copyright infringement (since there's no way you could realistically have thought that it was a legitimate copy.)